July 22, 2010

Quote :

"The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general. Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky. '[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]' Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned. As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession. But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and 'Auto Team' leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, 'but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for "shared sacrifice."' Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him 'that GM would usually save "not one damn cent" by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership. And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics. The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that 'experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...] Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]' Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, 'ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas.' That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play. Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%. The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open. Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support. While that last point is leaves room for debate, the details contained in the Barofsky report are not. As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and 'Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based.' Included among those undisputed facts: -'[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships'; -Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's 'mandate for shared sacrifice'; -A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could 'jeopardize the return to profitability' for GM and Chrysler. The media, of course, remain mute about these serious allegations in the Barofsky report. They have limited their coverage to the job loss numbers and tried to place the blame on Treasury Secretary Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner. For now. Before long, we'll be reading that it was somehow Bush's fault."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/race_played_role_in_obama_car.html

This is outrageous. Obama is positioning himself to be one of the worst presidents in history.

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM. Reason : And so much for the whole "post-racial" thing--again.]

7/22/2010 8:05:31 AM

I hope you know that over use of different formatting styles makes them all blur together and the effectiveness reverts back to the equivalent of plain text

The articles you post look like those hyperventilated political newsletters

Why can't you just bold one or two salient points and leave it at that

7/22/2010 8:10:49 AM

^ Thanks for sharing. And "reverts back" is incorrect.

Anything on the topic?

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:15 AM. Reason : FYI: Some of the formatting was from the article itself. ]

7/22/2010 8:13:35 AM

3/4 of that article is still bolded

At some point you just have to trust the audience to read your shit and if they don't plan to do so, no amount of bolding is going to trick them into it

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:20 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2010 8:19:11 AM

Yeah, here's a thought. I'm not going to give two shits about this story until it's properly investigated, considering the blatant racial trolling Breitbart just pulled off.

Unfortunately for him and for conservatives most people with critical thinking skills are going to react this way to these "reverse racism"'claims from now on.

7/22/2010 8:19:12 AM

Funny, sounds a lot like the way that conservatives react to NYT and WaPo articles

7/22/2010 8:21:15 AM

Races roleplayed in Obama college D&D campaign

7/22/2010 8:24:41 AM

^^^^ Again, thanks for sharing. Anything on the topic?

^^^ Critical thinking is good. But this report was issued by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal Barofsky. He is an employee of the federal government and Obama is the chief executive of this government.

^ Anything on the topic?

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:27 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2010 8:26:29 AM

Yes, and deferential treatment has been and will continue to be given to minorities and women owned businesses. It didnt start with Obama and it wont end with Obama. You can debate whether thats right or wrong. But listen, there is no grand racial conspiracy being perpetrated by the Obama administration. He doesn't have a deep-seated hatred for white people. He's not out to get us.

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2010 8:31:51 AM

^ Perhaps you can find a way to care about these points:

Quote :

"Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support."

Quote :

"As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession."

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM. Reason : One of the worst presidents in history. ]

7/22/2010 8:35:37 AM

Quote :

"Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal"

Exactly. I'll have to read more about it before I make any great leaps of logic.

7/22/2010 8:43:00 AM

I hope you know that over use of different formatting styles makes them all blur together and the effectiveness reverts back to the equivalent of plain text

The articles you post look like those hyperventilated political newsletters

Why can't you just bold one or two salient points and leave it at that

7/22/2010 8:47:51 AM

^^ The points made in the IG report itself are not anecdotal. Read it.

^ Anything on the topic?

7/22/2010 8:56:05 AM

^4

Quote :

""Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support.""

"Widely theroized" huh. No, its just a simple correlation with the fact that rural areas are predominantly Republican.

I'm inclined to believe that the majority of car dealership owners on the whole are Republicans.

7/22/2010 9:22:03 AM

^ "I'm inclined to believe" isn't even "widely theorized." And, once again for all, the points made in the IG report itself are not anecdotal. Read it.

7/22/2010 9:26:36 AM

the fact that GM and Chrysler still exist is horrific.

7/22/2010 9:35:36 AM

Ford did well without bailout money.

7/22/2010 9:37:54 AM

Quote :

"But listen, there is no grand racial conspiracy being perpetrated by the Obama administration. He doesn't have a deep-seated hatred for white people. He's not out to get us. "

Hooksaw of course knows this, he just has so few legitimate things to pick on that he falls back to trying to paint him as a racist.

7/22/2010 9:39:24 AM

sounds a lot like the way obama is handling the tea party

7/22/2010 9:39:54 AM

does it? Where has obama called them racist?

7/22/2010 9:41:04 AM

Quote :

"The points made in the IG report itself are not anecdotal. Read it."

7/22/2010 9:41:17 AM

If you think the NAACP resolution wasn't coordinated with democratic strategists in the white house then you're hopelessly naive.

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2010 9:41:56 AM

Americanthinker.com is a completely legitimate site! Why, let's look at their top headlines:

"Obama's Failing Presidency"

"Obamacare's hidden tax on gold"

"Of Course Obama's a Socialist"

"Delegitimizing Liberalism"

"Obama's Deadly Anti-British Agenda"

"Obama's Backwardness"

I completely trust the article in the OP to have little to no bias.

7/22/2010 9:44:00 AM

^ The column is a complete joke on many levels, i’m not sure why Hooksaw is trying to waste our time with it. I would have thought he would have learned his lesson of believing obviously biased, misleading sources from the Shirley Sherrod thing. It’s curious that he’s so insistent that Obama must be racist, he’ll believe anything that insinuates this...

7/22/2010 9:46:47 AM

Whether or not this turns out to be true, this practice is fairly well recognized in contracting with the federal government. Unfortunately, this practice is not limited to the current administration. With regard to dod/wartime contracts, it has been a common practice to register companies as minority or female owned simply to gain a leg up on the biddng process.

7/22/2010 9:47:04 AM

I would not call Obama "racist." I would say that he obviously shows pronounced favoritism.

7/22/2010 9:47:34 AM

Quote :

"I would say that he obviously shows pronounced favoritism."

LOL

where?

7/22/2010 9:48:55 AM