Another day, a few more headlines:

The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even
greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer.

The president's auto task force plans to consult with the company as it
replaces a majority of its board, a White House official said. The
board today largely consists of the current and former chiefs of major
U.S. corporations such as Coca-Cola, Ernst & Young, Pfizer and Eastman Kodak. It is not known which of the 12 board members will leave.

The president said Monday that "the United States government has no interest in running GM."

Here is the full story.  I am sure that die-hard Republicans will have every chance at equal representation on the new board.  

That this story has attracted so little notice is another sign of how numb we have become.


Okay, I'll throw it out there. Was Greenspan in fact Rand's Manchurian candidate?

I think you've become more sarcastic recently. It's not very pleasant to read. You used to be more civil than the rest of the blogosphere, and more civil than you are now.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

I have no interest in running GM. Excuse me for a moment while I reshuffle GM's board of directors.

Indeed, every day brings a new outrage. It makes the head spin and the stomach heave. I feel like Bill Buckley must have when he made his quip about standing athwart history telling stop.

I am sure that die-hard Republicans will have every chance at equal representation on the new board.

As only one current member might be described as a die-hard Republican, that is unlikely.A couple of them are ticket-splitters, but most of them are die-hard Democrats.

If a consumer wishes to preserve capitalism - and fears tyranny, the end result of socialism - should he now boycott GM automobiles? That's my plan.

The political types assume that they can transfer the wealth from the private sector to the political sector. I doubt it. My guess is that much of it will simply vanish, as much of it is human capital.

...then again, government run operations nearly always take a loss on every unit... damn!

I don't understand why any politician would WANT control of GM at this point. Either he's going to be responsible for huge job cuts to keep the business solvent, or he's going to be responsible for grotesque losses to run GM as a jobs program.

And this is worse than making loans to keep them afloat how exactly?

GM isn't competent to take care of itself. Without government money, they would be LIQUIDATED at this very moment. If its going to be on the government teat (which I opposed), why shouldn't the government start kicking some ass and firing the bozos that got GM to this point.

The line got crossed in December. Obama firing the BoD and Wagoner is merely the silver lining of that dark cloud.

"I am sure that die-hard Republicans will have every chance at equal representation on the new board."

It's almost like you've got some evidence to back this sarcasm up, like there's been widespread and significant cronyism in this administration. Or maybe you're just assuming in bad faith and dealing in self-fulfilled hypotheticals instead of, you know, events that have happened. Huh.

@Steven Donegal

"My guess is that die-hard Republicans were pretty well represented on the current board."

I do not claim any of this info is from a reputable source. Most of it came from a quick google search as I read MR at the end of the day before I go home. Current GM Board::

Erskine Bowles - Democrat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_B._Bowles#Electoral_history Ran for the Senate seat in North Carolina worked for Clinton administration
John H. Bryan - Independent/Democrat - http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/20/us/executives-are-afraid-of-power-shift-to-democrats.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Claims he is indpendent Raised money for Clinton
karen Katen - Democrat - gave donations to both barack obama and hillary cliton in last election
Philip A. Laskawy - gave large donations to Democrats include obama and john kerry and Democratic Nat Convention
Armando Codina - Republican - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armando_Codina
George M.C. Fisher - Republican - Campaigned for Bush - http://www.nndb.com/people/200/000126819/
G. Richard Wagoner - Republican - donated to Mitt Romney
Kent Kresa - Appointed by Barack Obama as interim chair - Apparently no affliation - No conclusive evidence on affiliation.
Erroll B. Davis, Jr - No Affiliation Found - Highly Educated Black Man in Georgia - Probably Democrat but no conclusive evidence on the web.
E. Neville Isdell - No Affiliation Found
Kathryn V. Marinello - No Affiliation Found
Eckhard Pfeiffer - No Affliation Found

So, it looks like from my quick google search, most are either not affiliated, die-hard democrat, or somewhere in between. Definitely NOT "die-hard republican". So before we go around spewing non-sense let's at least do the handy google search...


Are you proposing proportional share representation for taxpayers. Good for you!

Obviously what makes this different is that that GM has cash flow problems and the government never has liquidity crunch because when they can't take it, they make it.

So Tyler, would now be a good time for us to start panicking in the street, cracking open the heads of our fellow man and feasting on the gooey innards? or should we stick to hoarding canned food and assault rifles?

Hey, I seem to remember Republicans were quick to appoint die-hard Democrats to positions when they had power...wait no, the opposite of that.

Isn't it rather hypocritical of Republicans to attack Obama for lack of representation?

"The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors'
board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even
greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer."

Heil, Barack, mein Fuhrer!

Hey at least Obama is doing something. Doing something is better than doing nothing, right?

The WSJ thinks Obama's avoiding bankrupty to insure UAW votes in '12. Interesting take, and it's got some nice history on how the union and politics have, er, worked to our advantage in the past...

This story has attracted little notice? I'm hearing well-deserved criticism of the bail-outs all over the place.

My question: would the Republicans have done any differently? Bush supported bailouts of the financial industry and put Bernanke in power.

"The president said Monday that "the United States government has no interest in running GM."

Other great assurances made by Obama in his lifetime:

"I'll still respect you in the morning."

"I won't c** in your mouth."

"The check's in the mail."

"I'm your friend and I'll stand by you through thick and thin."

"I'm not interested in running for President right now."

I find it fascinating to see comments so outraged by sarcasm that is by today's standards of discourse exceedingly innocuous. I can't imagine how these people would have made it through the last 8 years if they'd been on the other side of the aisle subjected to actual vitriol.

For eight years the only evident function of the GM board was to express its unqualified support for Wagoner, no matter how much money or market share the company had lost. A random selection of 12 Americans could hardly do worse.

James, You are a fool. There is no cure for Polio. Check this out: In 1988, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the goal of global polio eradication. Although the initial target date of 2000 was not met, substantial progress has been made. In 1988, there were estimated to be 350,000 reported cases of polio in the world; in 2001, just 480 cases were reported in only 10 countries. Unfortunately, rumors about the safety of polio vaccine in 2003, and subsequent refusal of vaccine by many parents in Nigeria, led to an increase in cases and spread of the virus to nearby countries that had previously been polio free. In 2003, there were 784 reported cases; in 2004, there were 1,258 reported cases.
One of the largest initial sources for development of the Polio Vaccine, (not a cure) was the March Of Dimes. Its parent organization National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis revolutionized the way charities raise money. "Through its effective use of celebrities, poster kids and other advertising, pioneered grassroots fund raising,† explained Dr. David Oshinsky. “Prior to the depression, fund raising typically consisted of several very wealthy individuals giving large donations, not generating small donations from the masses.† It was founded in the late 30's and as opposed to funding from private foundations, it received its funding by making an appeal directly to the public. Yes the public sent in dimes to the tune of approximately $20 million. This was done in part because in those days and on into the time of Salk, the federal government was not in the business of handing out large sums of money for medical research. We haven't always had a government that thinks it needs to continually wipe our collective asses. If you are the slightest bit interested in actually learning something read The Virus Scare by Gerald E. Markowitz. Back to your feckless point, even today U of M has a lot of other sources that it receives money from besides the US government. Get your facts straight before you start calling someone a liar. I take it that you were educated in one of our glorious public schools. What a pity.

"Isn't it rather hypocritical of Republicans to attack Obama for lack of representation?"

Not necessarily, but it is ridiculous to react so negatively to something that hasn't happened yet.

You're totally right, the government should have to give GM a lifeline without having any say in what the company does. Cuz that's what capitalism is all about, right?

I would ask the president, if the government is not interested in running GM, why has his administration become so involved? I knew that these next four years were going to resemble socialism in some way, but I never imagined it going as far as the US government influencing the private sector of the economy. There is no room, in a capitalist society, for governmental involvement in the running of business. The bailouts should never have happened, but this is far beyond what I would have expected from an American Socialist. I hope that things work out for the best, but I am not very optimistic at this point.


I would agree that the economic impact of GM has been tremendous. That is, while they were making cars that people wanted at reasonable prices. Now they're just in the way, and they've got to go. So sorry for the folks impacted by the creative destruction, but they did have their day in the sun. It doesn't mean they have a right to stay there.

Well, now that GM is a zombie, my next car will most DEFINITELY not be a GM car. What companies can learn from this is that government money has strings attached... and often those strings will choke you. I guess the benefit of this is in the future, companies will be significantly less likely to ask the government for bailouts.

Idiot Idiot Idiot! I love how you guys think. Sorry but I can only assume that you are an overly emotional liberal with a learning disorder, or is that an oxymoron? Can't win the argument you started so switch to something else. I never said the government didn't do research, I said they haven't cured any diseases. In addition if we are to believe your wikipedia source, I personally wouldn't refer to wikipedia to learn anything or sight it as a source because it is subject to outside tampering, it states that "As of 2003, the Institutes (National Institutes of Health) are responsible for 28%—about $28 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry." So what's your point? Private industry is doing 72% of the heavy lifting. The story you sight is suggesting that advances are being made with gene therapy treatments. That is terrific, careful thoughtful research can better peoples lives, but to use this as an example of the government curing diseases is intellectually dishonest at best. Are you able to understand what I am saying or should I type slower? The fact that you sight wikipedia at all let alone as your sole source backing up the article you referenced shows your intellectual laziness. You must have learned to do this in one of our wonderful universities. I also find it funny that you are keying in on this one aspect of the response I wrote. Trying to argue any of the other points would most likely make your head explode. Get a life, then get a clue.

Why did you bother writing anything? I have 2 words for you Passive/Aggressive.
Don't worry about the tone. Worry about the content. It seems to me when you look at what is going on lately on the world stage, passionate debate is needed now more than ever. If someone wants to clock in and spread ignorant garbage and half truths, it should be countered with facts. If we (myself NOT included) have become too timid to deal with that, then we should just turn the keys over to the CHICOMS or the EU and call it a day.

good post and thank you

I gree with it!

Comments for this post are closed