From The Corner at National Review:
Karl Rove had especially harsh words for Chrysler’s “Halftime” advertisement starring Clint Eastwood. Conceding that “it was an extremely well-done ad,” Rove nevertheless tied it to Obama administration strong-arm tactics. “It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising,” Rove said. He added that Chrysler executives must have felt it necessary “repay their political patrons.”
Because Chrysler isn’t interested in selling cars.
UPDATE: I meant to add that this may have been Rove’s ‘jump the shark’ moment. If not, it sure should be.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
I liked that ad. Maybe Roves credentials as a patriotic American Exceptionalist are in question.
LikeLike
I love it when Karl Rove is whining. It means something good has been done.
LikeLike
Yep the ad was well done. It was a feel good ad. It should be (as Rove is trying to point out) since the taxpayers paid for it. What do we think Chrysler is going to say in ad “sorry we haven’t paid you back yet but look… our employees got their bonuses”?
LikeLike
mark, we (the taxpayers) got a great deal with that GM investment. It was two parts – a loan and an equity share. They paid the loan off in 2010 (about 8 billion). The rest is 61% ownership and it is scheduled to be paid off with a public stock offering. It may already have been.
Bonuses? I don’t know. The unions gave up their bonuses. Don’t know about the non union
LikeLike
I have no words. I just…. nah…. no words.
LikeLike
A speechless troll?
LikeLike
Pingback: Karl Rove Can Dish It Out But Can’t Take It. He’s Offended? Why would the common man care? | GoodOleWoody's Blog
I hate to speak for a troll, but is the same true for Chrysler??? I think that was his focus. Admittedly its been bailed out twice in the last 30 years.
LikeLike
It’s true for Chrysler, in fact I think I mistyped and those were Chrysler numbers (I got them by the way from FOX News). The US probably lost a bit over a billion on the deal – although that could be erased in the public offering goes well? (your area bruce, you probaly know more about this stuff) But that pales in comparison to the saved jobs and manufcturing which equal tax revenue to the gov’t worth far more than that. Not to meniton saved us from unemployement and other associated costs had those companies gone down, along with their suppliers. So I repeat what I said to our troll – a really good deal, a good decision.
Plus those companies are leaner and meaner and more efficient than they were because we tossed out top mgmt and put in people who didn’t have their heads in the sand – prvoing once again that gov’t can’t do anything right. 🙂
LikeLike
Chrysler is a different case than GM. Obama’s people just managed their bankruptcy and sale to Fiat – mostly by screwing the bond holders so that the unions would get their money and intimidating various hedge funds into not going to court over it.
There was never any thought of bailing out Chrysler like GM was bailed out because the company had near zero overseas markets and was utterly insolvent after Daimler dumped them as a money pit, largely due to the well above industry standard in labor costs per unit.
LikeLike
I certainly won’t argue that labor costs weren’t a big part of Detroits inability to compete. But the biggest reason they did poorly, was that for 30 years they just made lousy cars. Europe wasn’t interested in gas guzzlers and Americans weren’t interested in badly designed nad manufactured cars. Long before the bail out and for many years, Toyota was the number one selling car in the US. And all those imports we bought (not the ones made here) were mostly manufactured in countries with near universal health care, so those costs didn’t have to go into the final product.
I understood that the unions accepted big cuts as a condition of these bail outs.
LikeLike
Actually, the healthcare in those nations bears no resemblance to what we have in the US. You’d likely be horrified by it since they approach things far more pragmatically than we do and treat far less conditions.
As for design issues – You’re not wrong, but you’re failing to understand that higher per unit costs makes it that much harder to produce a competitively priced, well-designed vehicle.
As for gas guzzlers – the only segment of US auto manufacturing that was, and still is, doing well was light-to-midsized trucks and SUVs.
As for the unions taking cuts – Yes, they did after much fighting with reality. On the other hand, they also now make up a large part of GM’s BoD so it’s likely they’ll make up for those cuts if and when GM recovers.
LikeLike
I really dont want to nit pick here jonolan, but I’ve made myself very informed on health care in Japan, S Korea and Europe (and many other places). I am not horriifed, I admire greatly what they’ve managed to do. Indeed they are more pragmatic and that’s a good thing. They cover everyone, pay less and have better outcomes. What other measure matters?
LikeLike
Just for fun – here’s a direct copy from union.com:
The United States government wrote off some of Chrysler’s debt from its $12.5 billion bailout. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has acknowledged that the taxpayers will not recoup $1.9 billion of the bailout. Once again, the White House is being fast and loose with the facts.
But the bailout saved jobs, right? Here is The Detroit News: “Chrysler’s resurrection has not been painless: During its descent and bankruptcy, tens of thousands of jobs were lost, four plants were closed and 749 dealerships were shuttered.” Maybe Chrysler would have completely gone under without the bailout. Or maybe Fiat, which bought 20 percent of Chrysler and another 10 percent this year, would have bought all of it. Maybe other investors would have. We don’t know.
The Chrysler bailout was sold as necessary. In reality it was a bailout of choice in which the government transferred wealth from the taxpayers to unions, which now own 46 percent of the company. It was a payoff for a major Democratic constituency, done with your money — nearly $2 billion of which you won’t get back. Congratulations.
LikeLike
mark – what is union.com? It’s not a web site.
Also, I bring your attention to two things I said upthread:
1. “The US probably lost a bit over a billion on the deal . . . ”
AND
2. “But that pales in comparison to the saved jobs and manufcturing which equal tax revenue to the gov’t worth far more than that. Not to meniton saved us from unemployement and other associated costs had those companies gone down, along with their suppliers. So I repeat what I said to our troll – a really good deal, a good decision.”
LikeLike