I'm utterly shocked! It's not like Obama's predecessor EVER played favorites. In fact, wasn't there an incident in which a covert CIA operative was revealed by a member of the Whitehouse staff because their husband revealed that the whole Nigerian Yellowcake Uranium deal was a COMPLETE FABRICATION (which Bush used in his address to the United Nations as justification for an attack against Iraq)

Nope, that's not playing favorites at all. Even better is that Bush publicly stated during the investigation that if anyone found to have compromised the identity of that operative that they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Then he issued a presidential pardon to Scooter Libby

LOL @Artysim

That has nothing to do with what he posted.  Is that the lefts only response?  Bush did it too, so it's OK if Obama is worse.

Oh, and btw, the yellow cake deal was not a fabrication, as has been pointed out here several times in the past few years. 

From what I understand, this has also been happening to GM dealerships as well.

I would really like to see a counter argument to this article about the topic as oppose to simple "he done it, she done it too" corny arguments.

Is this your only response? Gee, lets just parrot, "Is this the only thing you've got [insert squawk here]*"

Concerning the issue of yellow cake, from what I've read the whole thing was BS. Then again, why bother stating it - I know neither you nor ID will believe it.

As for the issue of whether Obama really is closing the dealerships because of their politics, lets just say I'm not going to take the word of someone's blog. I'll have to research more; but let it be known - if it's true - then I don't particularly care for the tactic.

~Alderic

That's a pretty general statement. Could you back this up? Money quantity does not necessarily describe a persons political party. I'm poor (according to Dem standards) yet I am Republican, the majority in Congress are Dems and most if not all are rich (according to Dem standards).

You're right, that was a pretty bad generalization now that I look at it..

But, since the republican party caters to businesses, it would make sense that business owners are more likely to donate to the republican party then democrat. I don't have any numbers to back that up, but I would like to know how many dealerships donated to each to get a better picture. If 99% of donations were to rep vs. dem, then it wouldn't look so skewed.

Uh, I disagree. There's a difference between "catering to," in terms of the interests of the business and your claimed catering to - in gov't taking over. Sorry, but honestly, what business wants the government to take it over?

Either way, if either party is in office and it looks like they will be taking over businesses, the businesses still has a say. The business can say, "Sorry, but no." That's what I'm talking about.

You gotta talk to some people in the only language they understand, repetition.

I never mentioned anything about the yellow cake issue and honestly know very little about it, not enough to make any kind of argument besides saying "I don't know enough". In the end it's Gov't regardless which party is in charge, they all politicians either way.

If the objective is to sell more cars, why on earth would we want to shut down dealers? It just doesn't seem to make any sense. 

While Velwins comment makes sense to me, my question would be not be about selling more cars but more about the people losing their jobs. Wasn't the Obama Admin suppose to be creating jobs? How exactly does closing dealers accomplish this? Would that make people lose jobs? And wouldn't this allow the dealers that remain to abuse the lack of competition? I am having a hard time seeing how closing these dealers down to downsize and save the company outweighs the number of people lsoing their jobs and the possible abuse of lack of competition. I doubt the Obama Admin will be able to over see every dealer and stop the possible abuse.

Richard Armitage was not a member of the Bush White House staff.  But then, I wouldn't expect Arty to deviate from the party propaganda.

Did GM say just NO? You'll have to refresh my memory.

People that want to buy a GM (and apparently a Chrysler) vehicle are going to probably buy it anyway. Reducing the number of dealers will reduce competition, raising the price of the vehicle. This is important as the government tries to dictate the type of cars that we will buy (by reducing our choice) they can ensure the proper price (i.e. highest) price can be obtained from the consumer. IMO this will push consumers into the foreign and last non-government owned US company (Ford), so long as they produce what the folks want.

Unless Government Motor's politician/automobile engineers get lucky and come up with a winner and buyers overcome the skittishness of buying from a bankrupt company , the others can expect to do well,even in these lean times.

GM's new commercials actually tout less choice (less brands, less models). I'm not suggesting this is bad from a business standpoint. One has to ask why GM didn't do this 10, 20, or 50 years ago, just now that the government owns them. That's right they (the govt.) are business experts, they know best, right? I believe GM will sink much lower before (if) things get better for them.

What will be interesting is what the gov. will do to make the others produce their cars. Ford watch your back.