By on September 4, 2008

“Meanwhile, American business is taking seriously your concern about the cost of gasoline. General Motors is one of our sponsors. We are proud and honored that they are a sponsor of this program.

Everybody’s out there flapping their gums — Thomas Friedman, all these other people who don’t know what they’re talking about. General Motors is doing things, designing terrific cars, crossovers, trucks, SUVs, that use alternative fuels, different ways to power their vehicles. They even have the Escalade hybrid out there now to go along with the Tahoe hybrid, and they’re working on all kinds of different technologies that will help you use less gasoline. One of the alternatives they’re using is flex-fuel cars that use biofuels like ethanol if you want them, and they’re making them if you want them. They have four million of these flex-fuel vehicles on the road, across the globe, and they’re committed to building even more. GM has more modeled that are capable of running on E85 ethanol than any other manufacturer. The Buick Lucerne — that’s the one we’re getting next to tool around here — is one of the cars running on E85. General Motors, they respond to your concerns. They don’t tell you you’re stupid. You can see all their cars at RushLimbaugh.com. “

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

91 Comments on “Rush Limbaugh’s GM Pimpatorial...”


  • avatar
    jolo

    And my mom wonders why I don’t think much of Rush…

  • avatar
    shaker

    Ol’ Rush recently signed a 10-year contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars; I have an idea where some of that money came from…
    I hope Obama gets elected, just to know that when Rush gets his (increased) tax bill, he’ll have an apoplectic fit.

    I’d love to hear this, delivered in Rush’s trademarked “Teddy Roosevelt” tone:

    “Did’ya know that GM sells more Buicks in China than they sell here? Even the Chinese know AMERICAN quality when they see it!”

    Can you tell that I hate the guy?

  • avatar
    KixStart

    “They don’t tell you you’re stupid.”

    A perfect Rushism… Who has said that who is stupid? Why? Under what circumstances? What does this have to do with GM?

    But Rush’s Dittoheads now “know” that people have called them “stupid” perhaps from the context by buying or liking GM cars. Who knows?

    Of course, if you accept that statement of Rush’s at face value (and maybe make up the details, as outlined), then maybe you ARE stupid… Some might say the Limbaugh empire depends on that.

    A LaCrosse… heh. I’d like to see Rush jam his fat fanny into an Aveo. Fee or no, he’d be singing a different tune.

  • avatar
    AKM

    Well, I read not too long ago (in the NYT magazine, actually) that Rush Limbaugh was “selling airtime” on his program, where he’d openly advertise, himself, for said payers. I don’t remember the amount, but it was pretty steep. looks like GM is contributing to Mr. Limbaugh’s already large fortune.
    As if that would save them…

  • avatar
    GS650G

    If you don’t like or agree with Rush you’re free not to listen to him. His endorsement for a fee is perfectly fine, he’s not a government employee nor elected.

    Well, I read not too long ago (in the NYT magazine, actually) that Rush Limbaugh was “selling airtime” on his program

    And the problem is?

    GM’s problems are numerous but the statements he made are still true. It looks like hatred for Mr. Limbaugh has spilled over a bit.

  • avatar
    RayH

    Deleted my double posting-edit thing.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Not surprising. Now seeing Rush hock Subarus with the ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ crowd. Now that would be interesting.

  • avatar
    RayH

    I couldn’t figure out if both the v6 and v8 Northstar were E85 capable or just the v6, but they still give you ye ‘ol 4 speed automatic on either engine.

    General Motors, they respond to your concerns. They don’t tell you you’re stupid. ????

    Is that their new slogan? Rock on. Apparently lots of potential Buick buyers didn’t buy a Toyota, Honda, Ford or Chrysler because, upon arriving at the dealership, they were told of their stupidity.

  • avatar
    friedclams

    GS650G, you’re right it is OK for Rush to be a shill. And it’s also OK to mock him for being a shill.

    I do take issue with the statement “[GM is] designing terrific cars…” I have owned many fine GM cars over the years but their current lineup has lots of duds (Aveo, Lacrosse), which makes Rush’s statement dubious.

    P.S. A friend of mine in college had a GS650G and drove it all over the country, great bike…

  • avatar
    cleek

    Paul Harvey used a similar technique to sell products. However he always would preface an advert with the phrase “page #”, so the listener would know what was coming.

  • avatar
    Orian

    Obviously Rush sells out – he sold out to the Republican party and doesn’t care much for the truth so long as he gets paid. Nothing wrong with that – a man has to make money somehow right?

  • avatar
    GS650G

    P.S. A friend of mine in college had a GS650G and drove it all over the country, great bike…

    Someone has finally deciphered my screen name! I have driven mine through several states and even at it’s age the reliability is astounding.

  • avatar
    JimP

    The funny line for me is “they’re committed to building even more.”

    I’d feel better about GM if the line was, “they’re committed to making the best cars in the market – cars you want to buy.” Building even more questionable flex-fuel vehicles that few consumers want isn’t such a great idea.

  • avatar
    Hank

    His aren’t as bad as the Hannity ads. A couple lines that I’ve heard:

    While talking about the wonderful and efficient Pontiac Vibe he praised its engine as being one only GM could have engineered. Um, yeah.

    And while hocking the Tahoe Hybrid he praised it for being “almost as big as my Escalade.” Yeah. Almost. The fat Caddy emblem on the tailgate probably does make it a half centimeter longer.

    I’m thinking his endorsements are slowing sales.

  • avatar
    AKM

    @GS650G:

    Well, I read not too long ago (in the NYT magazine, actually) that Rush Limbaugh was “selling airtime” on his program

    And the problem is?

    No problem. Where did you see, in my post, that it was a problem? Unless discussing ad deals makes you nervous. Surprisingly, that article painted a human picture of Rush Limbaugh, with his qualities and shortcomings. Very interesting to read.

    I personally don’t care much about firebrands, regardless of their affiliations, although I respect their intelligence, when applicable.

  • avatar
    jaje

    I heard GM pays Rush prescription drugs under the table for his glorified statements.

  • avatar
    Mike66Chryslers

    At least the man made it obvious in the first quoted paragraph that it was a paid endorsement.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    General Motors, they respond to your concerns. They don’t tell you you’re stupid.

    Wow. Just wow.

    If any statement highlighted the secret angst of Rush’ demographic, this does. I can’t believe such a statement made it on the air.

    There’s a lot of people in this slice of society who have a huge chip on their shoulder about “the intelligensia”. There’s an implication that “smart” is cliquey, out of touch, arrogant and somehow “not a Real American/Canadian/Brit”. And that attitude seems to spring forth from a wicked inferiority complex.

    Again, I still can’t believe he said it.

    I don’t mean to say that the demographic to which Rush belongs is populated by stupid people, far from it, but that the emotional appeal of Rush’s stuff is largely based on the same victimization rhetoric that demagogues on both sides pull, only that instead of culture, race, class or gender, it’s perceived intellect.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    Be real, everyone.
    I know here at TTAC we love to exaggerate and take a little writer’s license…
    But let’s try to be a little fair.
    The fact that they have very stupid and narrow-minded suits doesn’t mean Rush is not right…they DO build great cars.
    Yes, their business plan sucks and they are a bit(?) behind in some of their development, but some of their cars ARE the BEST.

    The Silverado is a great truck.

    The Corvette is the top sprts/value car…go ahead and argue.

    The Malibu is a wonderful and popular new car.

    Impala…top selling and good.

    Tahoe…best of the SUVs…and family best.

    Lucerne…a very, very good car.

    The whole Enclave/crossovers. Late but good.

    Soltice…I know nobody at TTAC likes it, but man, I love it.

    The Vue Green Line 2 mode…I predict will be the
    BEST small SUV available this spring.

    Cadillac STS, CTS (Car of the year, I think?)

    Now come on.
    Yes…to, to many replications/duplications.
    This company should weed out all these and the weak sisters.

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    As a Rush fan and Republican apologist, I find some of the comments in this thread are condescending, uncalled for, and downright nasty.

    jaje, please refrain from trivializing and/or relating to a drug problem in a sarcastic manner, even if you don’t like them personally.

    As far as the advertisements, what’s wrong with Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin pimping GM? Nobody ever complains about the Miller Lite Halftime Show, The Home Depot College Gameday Pregame, or even the Geico Studios here in DC.

    There’s nothing illegal nor immoral about being a shill. It is the American way. If it was Bush 43 pimping GM, I could understand. But as a private, unelected citizen, these dudes can glowingly advertise for whatever product pays them the most cash.

  • avatar
    sandmed

    I listen to Rush every day. GM is one of the few subjects I disagree with him about. On the other hand why hold it against him for making some money from advertising? Hollywood throws hidden advertising into movies all the time. You think they do it for free?

    BTW, he says he drives something with a V12 twin turbo. I don’t think GM makes any of those.

  • avatar

    sandmed:

    On the other hand why hold it against him for making some money from advertising? Hollywood throws hidden advertising into movies all the time. You think they do it for free?

    TTAC has covered this story before. But I think it’s worth repeating some of the salient facts…

    1. Rush has only recently given his listeners (in this case readers) a heads-up that his comments were bought and paid for by GM. This change was most probably due to Ralph Nader’s petition to the FCC complaining about the [formerly seamless] blend of editorial and advertising.

    2. It’s one thing to accept advertising. It’s another to allow that advertising to inform (at best) your editorial stance. [FYI: TTAC accepts advertising but does not allow any of our sponsors to influence our editorial content. At all. On any level.]

    PS Sandmed: Rush is a car nut. He owns a Maybach. Maybe two. Maybe the company.

  • avatar

    “There’s nothing illegal nor immoral about being a shill. It is the American way.”

    It’s possible that there are a few of us who do find it immoral, whether or not it is “legal,” and wish fervently that it were not the “American way.” In the 1950′s, we put DJ’s in jail for pimping records, regardless of their political persuasion.

    It happens that in my business a part of it is to make recommendations to clients about specific products which will meet their needs. Many of these purchases are in the tens of millions of dollars. One of the six companies who dominate the business happens to be a very good investment opportunity, yet I will not invest in them. There is nothing illegal about it, and it is only immoral if I then make money for pimping them, but there is the potential that one of my clients will think that my opinion was influenced in some way by my own pocketbook.

    Celebrity endorsements are so commonplace now, we have become inured to the idea that “it’s not illegal,” so it must be ok. The fact is that they are using the power of their celebrity and being paid to do so whether or not they actually use or approve of the product. Because they’re being paid, we have no idea if they would actually use the product if given the choice.

    In the automobile business, GM is trying valiantly, but the marketplace is saying, thanks, but I think I’ll try something else. I, too, admire the Corvette, the CTS and the Aura for being signs of a rebirth, but only the Corvette is a class leader in this field; the CTS and Aura are remarkable cars only because they came after so many dreadful ones.

    And as someone pointed out, the firebrand sets himself up for criticism for flaming virtually everyone (did you ever hear Rush talk about McCain years ago?). Those who are good, like the late William F. Buckley, are quick with a riposte when someone takes them on. Rush comes up with the same old “they hate us” and it is just boring.

  • avatar
    Ptrott

    I love Rush, and I like some of the GM products. What is really wrong with them? You may not care for the styling or some of the dated technology, but, the cars are as well built as the Toyota’s and Honda’s I see every day. Quite frankly, the GM products FEEL more substantial than either or those brands. I work in the auto industry, and no, NOT for GM or any other domestic brand. But, I do know that TTAC writers and the arm chair quarterbacks that blog on here are overly harsh on ALL the domestic brands. I see plenty of the import brands that certainly do not measure up to the hype and need just as much reconditioning as any domestic brought in. Lighten up guys, on Rush and the big 2.8

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    edgett,

    So if Keith Olbermann was pimping Honda, would you be equally upset? =)

    The point is that Americans are influenced by multiple methods in all walks of life. Whether it’s Rush pimping GM, Jordan pimping Nike, or even LeBron James pimping John Deere, somebody other than Billy Executive is placed out to represent a company’s product offerings. Therefore, it is incredulous to “blame” the celebrity for accepting a financially rewarding offer to endorse a particular product.

    In addition, I do not believe that GM selected Rush, or Hannity, or Glenn Beck because GM agrees with their message. Talkers Magazine listed the aforementioned as the three highest-rated, most listened-to radio programs in the country. As a result, GM has opened itself up to a larger market; one that may appeal to the staunch conservative like myself (who bought a BMW), or the uber-liberal that listens to these programs for shock value or to offer counterpoint.

    And, I repeat, just because somebody says something does not open them up for criticism by everyone. We all have the choice to listen, or turn it off. As a result, no matter what you think about Rush, you should not scrutinize him for his drug abuse just because you disagree with his approach and politics.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    Robert!
    Come on…try to keep it simple.
    I can’t keep looking all these words up.
    “salient facts…”
    What’s that…Important facts?

    The paid mouth thing is important to know about.

    But did you have to bring up Ralph Nader!?
    All these guys are career promoting idiots using our good protection as a sheild.
    We were talking about our rights as humans to have fun, enjoy life…and drive fun cars without these do-gooders interfering.
    Talk about having bland safe crap around today…look to Ol’ Ralphy for this.
    He started it!

  • avatar
    cgd

    I wonder what Mr. Govt-Hands-Off Conservative poster-boy Rush thinks of the proposed GM bailout. Funny how when a Dem or liberal does that, it’s bad, even un-American, but it’s OK when a conservative Republican (or a company they’re shilling for) does it . . . Hmmmm, methinks I smell hypocrisy.

    I wouldn’t ordinarily mention his drug issue, but he’s the very one that, years before his addiction came out, was spouting about how we need more jails to hold the drug addicts. He brings criticism of that on himself by having beaten people over the head with it before. I notice he didn’t do any time for prescription fraud. If that had been me, I’m sure I would have gone to the Women’s Correctional Facility in a heartbeat since I’m not a celebrity.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    cgd

    Just for the record, did he say he was in favor of the bailout?
    Or did you just run with this?
    You start off wondering how he felt, then went on implying about how its understood he (or others) does.

  • avatar
    N85523

    Being an occasional Rush listener, I generally agree with his ideas, but not so much with his presentation (Talent on loan from GOD). He and Sean Hannity and I think even Glen Beck all seem to talk sense until it comes time to talk about their sponsor, General Motors.

    Rush did say something a bit insulting a few weeks ago when he mentioned that the price of regular unleaded is not worth mentioning in the headlines because nobody buys it anymore. Apparently a bunch of people phoned in to spout their support for regular, but he wouldn’t hear any of it saying that his listeners must drive a lot of cheap cars if they’re using regular and not premium…

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    In addition, I do not believe that GM selected Rush, or Hannity, or Glenn Beck because GM agrees with their message. Talkers Magazine listed the aforementioned as the three highest-rated, most listened-to radio programs in the country.

    You have to think about demographic intersection.

    Rush et al’s listeners are, by and large, going to be domestic customers on a far greater scale than, say, people who listen to classical, jazz, modern music, college radio or hip-hop. Talk radio, outside of NPR/CBC, is pretty much the domain of the right-wing demagogue. Saying these are the top talk radio hosts is like asking about the most popular hunting rifles are; there’s a certain, implied notion about who you’re asking, and it means that you’re probably not going to get feedback from yuppie, BMW-driving condo-dwellers.

    GM is preaching to the choir, here. At most, they’re fighting Ford and Chrysler, but what they’re really doing is pouring ad dollars down the drain reaching a market that isn’t at all lucrative. They need to be pimping Saabs, Buicks and Cadillacs to the people who aren’t buying them now, not getting Rush pimping Escalade hybrids to guys driving eight-year-old Sierras.

    This makes Rush’s “they don’t make you feel stupid” all the more glaring an oversight. Again, he’s playing the victimization angle, selling to people who feel, rightly or not, that their peers believe they’re unintelligent. That’s worse than the left-wing tactic of selling green on guilt; it’s selling to people’s insecurity, and it’s actually reinforcing it at the same time.

    Seriously “Buy GM, Because Toyota Salespeople Make You Feel Stupid”? I hope GM isn’t spending a lot on this guy, because they’re really not getting their money’s worth.

  • avatar
    cgd

    ppellico, I said I wonder what he thinks of the bailout. Any suppositions I made were based on his general philosophy of conservatism, free-market principles, and less govt interference in life and business. I suppose then, that he hasn’t said much on it, which in and of itself would be interesting, given the fact that he’s usually pretty vocal on such issues. If he has voiced an opinion, I’d like to hear it. It could be ticklish if GM is a sponsor of his.

    I used to listen to him, even read one of his books some years ago, so I’m not ignorant of his views. I didn’t always agree with everything, but it got me thinking, which I appreciated. I finally stopped listening because he is, first and foremost, an entertainer, and I prefer civil discourse to insults, which he did a bit much on his show for my tastes.

  • avatar
    Worm

    Schwanz, drug digs are a shot at Limbaugh’s hypocrisy, not his actual addiction. This is the man that called for mandatory life sentences for drug users in 1995. This is in addition to the hypocrisy of his supporters crying foul over “unfair” attacks against a man who has built his entire career on misleading, vague blanket attacks against others.

    Back to the subject, the whole drug user bit ties in nicely with his current statement on how only cheap people don’t buy premium gas; it shows how completely disconnected from every day reality the guy is with the subjects he rants about, which ties in AGAIN with the hypocrisy of painting the democratic party as out of touch intellectual elite who can’t relate to the working man’s every day problems.

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    psarhjinian,

    You’re making a lot of sense here…

    Seriously “Buy GM, Because Toyota Salespeople Make You Feel Stupid”? I hope GM isn’t spending a lot on this guy, because they’re really not getting their money’s worth.

    That’s the paraphrased statement that I can’t jive with either. How could Rush say that, when the only dealerships he’s visited recently have been Maybach (MB), Rolls Royce, and Lamborghini? Rush’s statement is about as convincing as Andre Agassi indicating that HP digital cameras take crappy pictures and make you gain 10 pounds, so go buy the Canon.

    I’m one of the more sensible Republicans…if someone makes a good point, I’m in agreement.

  • avatar

    ppellico:

    Your first comment is partially correct. The Silverado, Corvette and Yukahoe are all category leaders.

    I have to disagree on the Impala, Malibu, Lucerne and Solstice/Sky. They are improvements over their predecessors, but they are still light years behind their respective transplant competition. Light years.

    Enclave is solid. I’d still buy an MDX (or several other competitors) before an Enclave, but that is my humble opinion. So we’ll agree to disagree on that one.

    Just remember that GM and Ford continue to try to compete on price AND content. And that is very difficult to do, especially when you have more expensive labor and insane legacy costs. That’s why they are in this pickle….trying to fight two wars on two different fronts. They needs to pick one war and win it. Either sell the most inexpensive cars, or go up-market.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    cgd
    I don’t listen to him much anymore as well…but nowadays I stay in the house, hidden from the world and searching for another bottle and still smokeable butt in the ashtray.
    But it did get a little nastyish(?) with the drug reference.
    I know a few athletes who struggled with the pain killer after similar knee surguries.
    And this type of slow to hit addiction is not what we have problems with today.

    And since you and I really don’t listen to him much, we really don’t know where he satnds on this and how much he has spoken out on it.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    Rush is a very intelligent guy. He probably reads TTAC and already knows that GM is headed down the swirly bowl.

    Hehe, maybe he is a member operating here under an alias! I wonder, is there a member here called Ronaldus Magnus?

    Anyhow, Rush is not the only one who advertises for GM. Laura Ingram and Shawn Hannity (I think), among others, do this. To them, it’s probably just business. He’s almost always right 98.7% of the time anyhow, so when the good ship GM slips under the water, Rush will be able to stand a little decline in his error rate.

    I think I have said before, it will be interesting to hear Rush’s take on GM when the jig is up and they finally try to take the taxpayers’ money.

  • avatar
    Johnson Schwanz

    Worm,

    That is indeed a fair point. Admittedly, I was not a Rush listener in 1995; I was an 11th grade athlete that was disconnected from talk radio. There is indeed hypocrisy present, so that point is conceded.

    In addition, your comment on his premium/regular gas statement is also a valid argument. Doesn’t he realize that the automobiles he’s endorsing operate on 87 octane? He is extremely out of touch with reality, and with the everyday common person like you and I.

    CGD’s point about him being an entertainer is the most factual statement made in this thread so far. When asked why he doesn’t run for president, he answers, “pay cut.” He is not a journalist, just an agenda distributor who all but usurped Larry King’s talk radio dominance and revived AM radio from the dead. Also, I think that the closest thing to a “straight shooter” on national radio is, ahem, Bill O’Reilly (aka Ted Baxter), who also pimps GM.

    GM has invaded ALL of talk radio, as SAAB ads have infiltrated SportsTalk/ESPN 980 here in DC.

    It’s cheaper than TV ads.

  • avatar
    cgd

    ppellico, I too am an ex-smoker and so feel the pain of other addicts. As I said, Rush was the one spouting against drug addicts. If he had not beaten people over the head with it so much, I wouldn’t have been so critical. I have a problem when people claim to be better than the rest of us and spout vitriol on public airwaves. Then come to find out, they’re human too, then they want sympathy all of a sudden. It’s the hypocrisy and past insults I have a problem with, not his addiction itself.

    I wish you luck in your quest for sobriety. I have been 20 years without a cigarette, so it is possible. I also wish Rush the best in battling his addictions.

    True, I don’t really know where he stands on this one thing. Having heard the word “femi-nazi” as well as other insults, I may not find out and will be OK with that. I never understood why he had to go there with the femi-nazi term. I don’t believe wanting equal opportunity and equal pay is out of the norm or radical. To equate that with the Nazis, who committed horrible atrocities and killed millions, was IMO over the top.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    MgoBLUE :

    How long a period of measurement is a light year?

    We can agree to dissagree on the Soltice.
    But I love that car.
    And the tech that went into the water molding of its body panels was/is revolutionary.

    But as for the Enclave (and its brothers) being compared to the MDX…you might be right.
    Not sure about the interior and towing, but start pricing is the same and MPG similar.
    But one’s premium for the turbo 4.

    But still, my point about good cars and to much duplication is still there.

    Thanks

  • avatar
    ppellico

    And let’s not forget that GM, like the other Big 2, really build great trucks.
    Our country runs on these.

  • avatar
    Worm

    Actually, American car manufacturers like GM DO make me feel stupid. Stupid that an American manufacturing icon is not only behind on market trends, but that they learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the gas crunch 30 years ago when Asian cars first started catching up. Now they’re the ones playing catchup to market trends that Toyota saw coming.

    Japan’s advantage is that their policies aren’t run by big oil.

  • avatar

    What, advertisements on the radio? When did that happen?

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Why does this keep floating to the top of the News list? Is it because Limbaugh is full of hot air?

  • avatar
    Tip Top

    I am proud to say that Rush’s $400 million renewal contract doesn’t include one cent of mine. Sorry, G.M., I will not buy any of your products as long as there is a chance that any of my hard-earned money will end-up in Rush’s greedy, fat hands while you patronize him.
    Let me tell you about my 2001 Ford Ranger Edge with 4.0L V-6 and nearly 100,000 miles on it. This is the first vehicle I’ve ever had that doesn’t require oil to be added between oil changes. This is with 5W-30 synthetic changed yearly at apx. 11,000 miles. This is also the first vehicle of mine that does not leak a drop of oil. This includes engine, transmission, differential, and power steering. Now let me tell you about the 1974 El Camino I once had…Don’t ask.

  • avatar
    Revver

    Bloated. Clueless. Ill prepared for the future. Media types call it brand synergy. Makes perfect sense.

  • avatar
    Worm

    I’m sorry, I’m STILL laughing over the premium gas statement.

    “What do you mean you’re putting less than 92 octane into your Maybach 57 V12 engine?! It seems awfully cheap to be skimping on gas after investing $300k into your car!”

    Going on about how GM is great because they’re making fuel efficient hybrids while driving a 16 mpg SEDAN (10 in cities), and that GM understands YOUR concerns (how to get only the finest gasoline into your new Maybach).

  • avatar
    ppellico

    cgd
    Good God…I am not trying to get sober!
    What a frightening thought.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    …SAAB ads have infiltrated SportsTalk/ESPN 980…

    Oh, that’s pure genius, that is. Maybe the next step would be advertising the Tahoe in the Sierra Club monthly.

  • avatar
    raast

    Actually it’s a decent match-up. The credibility of both are about equal.

  • avatar

    ppellico – When I listen to Rush, I’m convinced he’s as frightened as you are…

    We have almost taken a Temperance Union mentality to “sobriety” as if people aren’t addicted to all kinds of things which are unhealthy or at least unwise. Marathon runners are pushing themselves so hard that their rate of heart disease (and failure) is equivalent to the totally sedentary. The drug companies have expertly discovered the means to market drugs which are equally addictive to “bad” drugs, and to which millions are now addicted, thinking it is ok to do so. And we spend hundreds of millions trying to eradicate the scourge of marijuana (which apparently kills no one) while far more money is lost to the ills of alcholism.

    Welcome to the human race… The end result is the same, for even the most dedicated vegan PETA member as it is for any other “addict.” These aren’t moral issues, but have to do with the simple things we do each day to cope with the trauma of living.

    For Rush it seems it’s a moral issue when it is a 17 year-old crack addict, but not when you’re a Maybach-driving Oxycodone-addicted “entertainer.”

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    This is an ad, people. An *AD*. Where have you been all your lives? There are ads on TV, radio, in newspapers. Everywhere. I can’t believe people get their panties into a bunch over, OMG, a radio host airing an ad for General Motors. The horror!

    This I have to quote:

    jolo wrote:
    And my mom wonders why I don’t think much of Rush

    Yeah. Ehm.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Wow, I didn’t know Rush was such a big ethanol proponent. I thought the right frowned on subsidies and government interference.

    This endorsement goes way beyond other host-voiced radio advertising (i.e. “my favorite sleep number is 5″). It doesn’t speak poorly of Rush, who I’m sure got enough money from this GM stunt to buy a number of exotic foreign cars. It speaks poorly of anyone that forms their world outlook based on Rush’s commentary, which is apparently for sale to the highest bidder.

    By the way, from my father’s experience with a number of GM dealers I can tell you that General Motors does not respond to your concerns, and they do tell you you’re stupid.

  • avatar
    Edward Niedermeyer

    Could a dittohead out there please call in and ask for Rush’s take on the proposed bailout? My bet is that El Rushbo votes with his pocketbook on this issue rather than his free market principles.

    The bailout issue lands smack dab in the middle of Republican’s current project to recast itself as reformist and anti-special interest. Obama’s in for all $50b, and Republicans have to find the balls to attack him on it. Someone’s gotta be the free-market candidate.

  • avatar
    Airhen

    Rush as with anyone as the right to promote whatever advertisers he wants. I’d promote GM too if they thought my advertising rates were worth their hard earned marketing dollars.

    As far as you Rush haters… Call him sometime and let us listen to him make mincemeat out of you. We love listening to how liberals always start to fumble like Lord Obama when his teleprompter shuts down. LOL

    Personally what I hate about the thought of ever buying a GM (or other Big 2.8) vehicle is that it was built by the UAW. Even Rush can’t get me over that one… LOL

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    I really envy Rush.

    Close your eyes and imagine lounging around your 10,000 square foot Manhattan penthouse, watching football on a 72″ TV with sound from a Mcintosh Tube Amp (probably), smoking the finest Cuban cigars all while zonked out of your skull on Oxycontin.

    I mean seriously, is that the life or what?

  • avatar
    ztatum

    There’s a lot of bitterness in this thread over Rush Limbaugh, and it’s interesting that nobody seems to realize that his objective is to embroil his liberal audience. It’s so easy for him to get under your skin because, like any conservative, he values fiscal/economic health over social issues and liberals hate the thinking that the financial betterment of the country as a whole is more important than the future of their favorite mismanaged social program. This is where leftist hatred of successful free enterprise comes from. Rush asserts himself in an abrasive manner that conservative politicians would scare people if they were to replicate. When he does this (tells it like it is )he creates a panic, as illustrated by so many of the comments above, and you start to see personal jabs and in-apt comparisons to make an emotionally driven point with zero substance.
    So, as a lifelong conservative, i urge the liberals to continue to let your emotions dominate your judgment. Because when you’re doing that, you’re ignoring common sense and letting yourself have a fit the way a young child might; thus further distracting you from any useful initiative that might weaken your opposition.
    You’re playing right into his hands.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    Jonny Lieberman

    yes, that is the American Dream…I think.

    But the drug is not really one of my fav first choices.
    That would be scotch!

    His is (was?) not a real recognizable high.
    Thats why I am trying to explain the difference to you all.
    My athlete friends who got addicted to it from similar surguries say its not noticeable at all.
    In fact, you begin to take it NOT to get high, but to NOT get sick.
    Its kind of a weird trap.
    You begin a quiet, slowl build up of it not to feel good, but not to feel bad.
    Make any sense?

  • avatar
    RoweAS

    ztatum :

    Gosh, I thought I hated Rush because he is a pompous windbag

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    As far as you Rush haters… Call him sometime and let us listen to him make mincemeat out of you. We love listening to how liberals always start to fumble like Lord Obama when his teleprompter shuts down. LOL

    It’s easy get made mincemeat of when your opponent controls the whole show and he/she deliberately mischaracterizes your argument.

    I’ll give you two examples: I used to Oxford debating, and it’s a lot of fun because you get your chance to make a point, be rebutted, then make closing arguments without getting shouted down or nailed with non-sequiturs mid-comment. Amusingly, if you’ve been to a hip-hop battle, you’ll see the same thing: statement, rebuttal and closing, all without interruption and with all participants on even footing.

    What Rush does is different. It’s like a televised political debate: constant interruption, nonstop soundbites and the use of ad hominem attacks in lieu of real debate. Plus, Rush has a research and prompting staff armed with instant PR, as well as his fingers on the hold, mute and edit buttons.

    I’d like to see how well Misters Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly or Ms. Coulter would do in a formal debating forum: not on their shows or in print, and certainly without their handlers, prompters or slanted rules of engagement.

    I don’t think it would go nearly as well for them.

    I’ve been in more than a few business meetings where VPs or senior managers do exactly what Rush does: oversimplify, mischaracterize and soundbite their opponent to death. It’s intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

  • avatar
    ztatum

    RoweAS:

    Jeez did you not absorb what i was saying?

    again with the emotional jabs and name calling…

    ignore your emotions for a second and think about why he signs $400MM contracts and you (probably) dont. Then use whatever realization you might come to for the betterment of your own life.

    Perhaps that might help quell some of the bitterness.

  • avatar
    ppellico

    ztatum
    Relax.
    I am conservative myself…sort of…without all the god stuff.
    And the main story here is only to point out that Rush should have made it clear from the beginning that he is a paid mouth.
    Its one thing doing the ad during breaks, but having it inserted in the main topic is a little in the sneaky side.
    That’s why advertising must be listed as such.

    I like the big (former nicotine stained) guy.
    Its nice having the conservative side win the media wars.
    And he did start the talk radio thing.
    But we still need to take everything with a Lagavulin and water back, so to speak.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    liberals hate the thinking that the financial betterment of the country as a whole is more important than the future of their favorite mismanaged social program. This is where leftist hatred of successful free enterprise comes from

    Can I make a Rush-style attack here to demonstrate why this style of debate is self-defeating:

    “Why don’t you move to sub-Saharan Africa? I hear they have absolutely no social programs and anyone can just raise their own private army if they need to get things done.

    Why, it’s the American dream!”

    Now, do you see why ad hominem micharacterizations like Rush’s or yours make arguments look foolish and petty?

    Instead of an honest discussion, you’re trying to take a moral high ground by attacking the person, not the argument. It’s no less disingenuous when a leftist calls someone a Nazi than it when Rush et al use terms like “Liberal”

  • avatar
    AKM

    like any conservative, he values fiscal/economic health over social issues and liberals hate the thinking that the financial betterment of the country as a whole is more important than the future of their favorite mismanaged social program. This is where leftist hatred of successful free enterprise comes from.

    Why didn’t the current administration get the memo?

    I don’t hate Rush Limbaugh, I hate hypocrisy, on both sides, especially when combined with a “holier-than-thou” attitude, on both sides as well.

    The sentence quoted perfectly explains my argument.

    Oh, and whoever supports the D2.8 bailout does NOT support free enterprise. That’s true for Democrats as well as Republicans.
    Gosh, even The Economist is advocating the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie, on the grounds that taxpayers will have to pull money out of their pockets anyway.

  • avatar
    RoweAS

    ztatum :

    Actually, I tend to be very middle of the road. I don’t really care for left or right leaning windbags. And yes I am quite capable of absorbing what you said. Just because he signs 400mm contracts doesn’t make him immune from criticism (see Mr. Wagoner)

  • avatar
    ztatum

    ppelico:
    well put. and i agree that he blurs the line between advertising and opinions…i just didnt understand that this is such a heated issue.
    make mine a neat Laphroaig, leave the bottle.

  • avatar
    ztatum

    AKM: the current administration didnt get the memo because even they are pervasively democratic, and these are their policies. Just because the President is a Republican (albeit a weak one) doesnt mean that his methodology permeates his House and Senate. Quite the opposite lately on many issues.

    All: I can see I’ve stirred up the pot here…i apologize for directing a conversation on TTAC to topics that in no way deal with cars. I didnt expect to create such a stir and unfortunately, I dont have time to answer all the comments directed towards me, so i have to end it here.

    good day to all

  • avatar
    ppellico

    ztatum

    Yes, Laphroaig is a great, nicely though slighly, smokey scotch…and MUCH better priced.
    I just want my scotch soooo smokey, its like licking an ashtray.

    Sorry people for letting this get off the anti-Rush topic.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    As a conservative, I elect not to listen to Rush for a whole host of reasons… and now I have one more.

    Touting E85 is equivalent to showing up to a football game with a baseball bat.

    What a tool…

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    psarhjinian :
    General Motors, they respond to your concerns. They don’t tell you you’re stupid.

    Wow. Just wow.

    If any statement highlighted the secret angst of Rush’ demographic, this does. I can’t believe such a statement made it on the air.

    What’s the big deal? Why is it such a shock that ‘such a statement made it on the air.’?

    Marketing by tapping an underdog sentiment is common. I don’t much care for most GM products or Rush’s style, but he has a point in tapping the condescending arrogance of Tom Friedman types. It’s Rush’s program, he can say what he wants (within reason), and if you don’t like it, don’t listen.

    Undeniably, talk radio has issues. Personally, I find (non-satellite) commercial talk unlistenable. I even enjoy NPR’s Tom Ashbrook. But unlike welfare radioNPR, commercial talk radio doesn’t extort tax dollars from those with whom it disagrees.

  • avatar
    AKM

    AKM: the current administration didnt get the memo because even they are pervasively democratic, and these are their policies. Just because the President is a Republican (albeit a weak one) doesnt mean that his methodology permeates his House and Senate. Quite the opposite lately on many issues.

    But of course!! Somehow, the evil Democrat conspiracy has penetrated W’s brain and turned him into a Manchurian candidate.
    What happened to accepting personal responsibility?

    And yes, Democrats in Congress are also guilty of politics as usual. But they weren’t in Congress for most years of the Bush administration. Cheney himself famously declared “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”. That’s fiscal conservatism if I’ve ever seen it.

    But do not worry about stirring the pot. It happens every so often, and is actually quite healthy. I trust all of us to remain polite (if indeed off -car-topic), and the mods to tell us to stop if they get bored with our political debates :-)

  • avatar
    Adub

    Wow, mention Rush and people crawl out of the woodwork.

    So what if he schills for GM? Most of the ads during his program in my area are for Greenpeace, Pickens, Global Warming, and CFLs. Touting GM doesn’t seem that bad by comparison.

    As for the Impala, it has been the third best-selling car in America for almost a decade. It has more interior room than either Camry or Accord. It’s cheaper to buy and insure. Why not plug it? It’s not like he’s schilling for Chrysler…

  • avatar
    John

    GM needs access to more people who drink the Koolaide. Rush owns the mother lode. Problem solved.

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    “There’s a lot of people in this slice of society who have a huge chip on their shoulder about ‘the intelligensia.’ There’s an implication that ‘smart’ is cliquey, out of touch, arrogant and somehow ‘not a Real American/Canadian/Brit.’”
    psarhjinian / September 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    in the 2008 campaign vernacular: ‘elites’
    .

    “…playing the victimization angle, selling to people who feel, rightly or not, that their peers believe they’re unintelligent.”
    psarhjinian / September 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    ever wonder why?
    .

    “Rush is not the only one who advertises for GM. Laura Ingram and Shawn Hannity (I think), among others, do this. To them, it’s probably just business.”
    ZoomZoom / September 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    here’s how i see it. the common denominator seems to be this: respect and/or lack of respect for the truth.

    [1] gm can’t sell most of its products based on the truth because the truth is, it builds way too many substandard vehicles and that admission is hardly an effective ‘unique selling proposition’ for generating new business.

    [2] the big limburger, hannutty, ingrained and o’leilly, et al, don’t have much use for the truth either, because they’ve been too busy shilling for the universally-discredited, irredeemably-corrupt bush administration – and profiting handsomely from the process.

    [3] all of which makes this particular targeted audience ideal for gm because, as this audience’s continued support for this fatally-flawed administration and these blathering b.s.ing cartoons quite clearly confirms, truth is not something it is seeking.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    I like Rush. They are one of the best bands to come out of Canada.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    As a rush fan and a conservative, I DO have a problem with what he said, and I am going to be up-front enough to call it as I see it. True conservatives should have little use for the whole ethanol e-85 boondoggle, and Rush, by his comments, appears to endorse it. Perhaps his remarks could be interpreted as hey, the E-85 program is reality, and GM is just making cars that fit in with the environment, but….damn….the e-85 program is a debacle, bad economic, energy and farm policy….and for Rush to imply–even if his comments are parsed– that it isn’t is troubling to us true conservative types…..

  • avatar
    shaker

    ZoomZoom:
    “Hehe, maybe he is a member operating here under an alias! I wonder, is there a member here called Ronaldus Magnus?”

    When he was a rock-and-roll DJ in Pittsburgh back in the ’70′s, he was calling himself Jeff Christie.

  • avatar
    geeber

    AKM: Why didn’t the current administration get the memo?

    Because the current administration is not truly conservative in virtually any sense of the word. Unless one considers tax cuts and an anti-abortion stance as sufficient to constitute “conservatism.”

    Bush was only conservative in comparison to his 2004 opponent.

    This has happened before. President Nixon declared himself a conservative, when in reality he was anything but. He only looked conservative in comparison with his 1972 opponent, George McGovern. (Who has since backed off many of the stands contained in the 1972 Democatic platform. Living in the real world will do that to people.)

    Four years earlier, Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace had his faults, but he had it right in 1968 when he said that there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Nixon and Humphrey.

    AKM: Oh, and whoever supports the D2.8 bailout does NOT support free enterprise.

    What’s amusing is looking up the quotes of the Obama fans (one hesitates to call them supporters, as their glassy-eyed fawning over the man goes beyond mere support) who once decried as “corporate welfare” Bush’s tax breaks and incentives for the energy companies. Now they are practically wetting their pants for the candidate who, in his acceptance speech, basically said that Detroit will receive some form of federal assistance if he is elected.

    (“We will help ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built here.” Um, last time I checked, the fuel-efficient cars of TODAY are being built right here in the U.S. The problem is that they have names like Honda Civic and Toyota Camry, and aren’t being built by UAW members, meaning that people who assemble them don’t pay dues to an organization that, in turn, writes checks to the Democratic Party.)

    Newsflash – this is corporate welfare, too. Just because a Democrat touts it, and union members living in a key battleground state support it, does not mean it is not corporate welfare.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    this is corporate welfare, too. Just because a Democrat touts it, and union members living in a key battleground state support it, does not mean it is not corporate welfare.

    The distinction is: is it corporate welfare because you’re doing it for industries that lobby you, or is it because you’re trying to bail out an industry that’s responsible for at least 10% of the employment in this country.

    I don’t support the first. I do support the second.

    I don’t think any of us who support a bailout have said that it should be carte blanche, though. And no, we don’t like doing it. But we also like to work, make mortgage payments and eat, and those become significantly harder when people are thrown en masse out of the workforce, and their spending power shrunk or withdrawn.

    I think that a lot of people don’t want a bailout out of either spite or political principles. There’s nothing really wrong with both, because a) the domestics have been awful and b) there is value to the philosophy of fiscal nonintervention. But we have to be pragmatic, here: North America is teetering on the edge of recession and has suffered a bit hit in credit and consumer spending. One or more of the domestic automakers failing would be very bad for most Americans, Canadians and Mexicans, just as one or more major banks doing so would achieve the same thing.

    You cannot eat an ideology. You cannot clothe yourself in ideology, you cannot make payments with ideology.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I like Rush. They are one of the best bands to come out of Canada.…

    Thanks for a burst of humor. The thought of leaving this site with Windbag on my mind would make me ill. Rush is to me what Al Gore is to conservatives. I detest the ignorance that spews out of his mouth, but hey, he gets paid big bucks to basically talk about his opinion of what a conservative should be and how great his views are. Most of us wish we could make a substantial living by voicing our opinion. In a way, I am envious of him. Can’t help but wonder: Why has the left not tried to prosper in the talk radio world? Seems that there would be a market on both sides. Glad I have a CD changer in the car and ignore the talk radio world entirely. Surprised nobody brought up any comparisons to Bill O’Reilly or Faux News…

  • avatar
    geeber

    psharjinian: The distinction is: is it corporate welfare because you’re doing it for industries that lobby you, or is it because you’re trying to bail out an industry that’s responsible for at least 10% of the employment in this country.

    Which isn’t a distinction at all in this case, because the auto industry (especially the UAW) is lobbying the Democrats for this bailout, and the oil industry is quite important to this country, given that it supplies a vital resource that literally fuels the economy.

    What you support is corporate welfare. It is guided by the same principle that led the Bush Administration to give tax incentives to the oil industry. The difference is that this one is proposed by the star of the Democratic Party, so it is somehow okay.

    psharjinian: But we have to be pragmatic, here: North America is teetering on the edge of recession and has suffered a bit hit in credit and consumer spending. One or more of the domestic automakers failing would be very bad for most Americans, Canadians and Mexicans, just as one or more major banks doing so would achieve the same thing.

    A failure of one or more would be a necessary shock to the survivors, and free up capital and resources that would be better used for other, more productive enterprises.

    Success and failure go hand in hand in a healthy economy. The simple fact is that a bankruptcy of, say, GM (the one most likely to file) would not be the disaster that everyone thinks it will be. The worthwhile parts – factories, model lines, even brands – will be picked up by competitors who will run them better. The rest will wither away and die, as they should. It’s not the responsibility of taxpayers to prop up mismanaged, failing empires, or ensure that UAW members never lose a job.

    GM is not a viable enterprise in its present configuration. Federal aid will only prolong the agony, and waste a lot of taxpayer dollars taken from people who could use them to clothe, feed and shelter themselves with that money. That’s not ideology; it’s common sense and a knowledge of history, how the political process really works, and what GM’s management would do with federal aid.

    (And please don’t induldge the fiction that the government is really going to demand a thorough house-cleaning of GM. It will likely demand the heads of a few top leaders [Wagoner, Lutz, etc.] but not enough to really change the corporate culture. The rot at GM extends FAR below the executive suite.)

  • avatar
    YotaCarFan

    *** It’s a commercial, not an endorsement ***

    Rush Limbaugh has stated several times in the past on his show that GMC is one of his advertisers, and that he offers advertisers a unique style of commercial where he interjects positive comments about their products into the story line of his show. Thus, Rush’s glowing comments about GMC products are not the result of him having a preference for those products; they are part of GMC’s paid advertising campaign. Another twist to the ad campaign is that GMC lends Rush and his staff vehicles for them to drive, presumably so he can speak more knowledgeably about the product’s features and so his comments sound like a customer testimonial, lending them more credibility to the listeners. This is no secret.

    He does these kinds of ads for many products – a tankless water heater, steaks, clothes, etc. – which he often “casually mentions” during his program. It’s a clever technique, and is apparently so effective many people are convinced he’s a GMC fan. However, as another poster mentioned, he owns a Maybach vehicle. I doubt Rush tools around his Palm Beach neighborhood in a flex-fuel GMC truck or Buick Lucerne :)

    The ads are an indication GMC’s marketing machine at least has some good ideas – Rush has a very large listener base, ensuring GMC’s ads reach the ears of millions of listeners daily.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Which isn’t a distinction at all in this case, because the auto industry (especially the UAW) is lobbying the Democrats for this bailout…

    They’re lobbying both parties, but the Democrats are getting it from both industry and labour, true.

    …and the oil industry is quite important to this country, given that it supplies a vital resource that literally fuels the economy.

    If you were Canadian, I’d buy that line, but the US is not so dependent on the oil industry as it is oil use. Considering that the US is a net importer of oil, and would likely remain so even if more oil was drilled for domestically, the economic footprint of the oil industry isn’t likely as large–certainly not so much as automotive manufacturing and it’s satellites.

    That’s the different between the current administration’s shadow-hand assistance to Oil and a future administration (Republican or Democrat, I don’t care) offering direct assistance to the Automakers.

    And yes, the assistance to Oil significantly more underhanded than the direct bailouts being offered to the Automakers.

    Success and failure go hand in hand in a healthy economy.

    This is not a healthy economy. This is an economy in crisis

    The simple fact is that a bankruptcy of, say, GM (the one most likely to file) would not be the disaster that everyone thinks it will be. The worthwhile parts – factories, model lines, even brands – will be picked up by competitors who will run them better.

    Possibly, but certainly not quickly. Bankruptcy proceedings are slow, and I wouldn’t suspect that, given supplier reticence, production would be consistent. At best, there would be significant layoffs and stoppages. There would definitely be an across-the-board loss of consumer confidence. Had this occurred in 2004, it would be have been easier to swallow.

    GM is not a viable enterprise in its present configuration. Federal aid will only prolong the agony, and waste a lot of taxpayer dollars taken from people who could use them to clothe, feed and shelter themselves with that money.

    People who are having trouble meeting ends meet are not troubled by taxes. They are, however, extremely vulnerable to unemployment.

    If your concern is about taxation, you should look to the giant cash conflagration that is defence or Medicare.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    just in case i needed another reason not to buy a gm product

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    What I don’t get is why a man who claims to be for America, and for freedom, and for capitalism, would help put money in the hands of GM management and the UAW. Both groups are the epitomy of everything wrong with America.

  • avatar
    JuniorMint

    LC: I knew there was something we agreed on.

    Also, is it just me, or are we on pretty much the same schedule? o_0

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I haven’t had a schedule much for a while. Soon maybe.

    This isn’t the first time I have made this query, and it seems most people think it’s a strange question. On the face of it, it seems simple. GM is an important American company, they pay people like Limbaugh and Hannity to be spokesmen for them. The product may not be the best, but it’s not a scam, and they certainly are not being “shills”.

    Still, I would think Limbaugh knows that he is going to help them sell cars. They are going to use that money to lobby congress for corporate welfare while paying millions into UAW coffers. Agree with him or not, Limbaugh is a smart guy, and he should be able to figure this out.

  • avatar
    geeber

    psharjinian: If you were Canadian, I’d buy that line, but the US is not so dependent on the oil industry as it is oil use. Considering that the US is a net importer of oil, and would likely remain so even if more oil was drilled for domestically, the economic footprint of the oil industry isn’t likely as large–certainly not so much as automotive manufacturing and it’s satellites.

    Increasing domestic oil production would help our economy by stimulating economic activity within our borders. And oil, wherever it comes from, is vital to our nation’s economy.

    And please note that the collapse of GM would NOT mean end of the domestic auto industry. Ford would still survive, and the transplants would, if anything, increase their footprint in the U.S.

    For that matter, GM wouldn’t even necessarily disappear. There are still parts of the company with real value – just not under present management.

    psharjinian: That’s the different between the current administration’s shadow-hand assistance to Oil and a future administration (Republican or Democrat, I don’t care) offering direct assistance to the Automakers.

    And yes, the assistance to Oil significantly more underhanded than the direct bailouts being offered to the Automakers.

    The assistance to the oil industry is in a different form than a direct bailout, but is well-known and quite open. (Especially considering that it is openly discussed not only on this site, but every other site and publication I’ve ever read. It was also heavily discussed at the time of its passage. If it’s supposed to be kept secret, someone needs to be fired.)

    One only needs to search for the federal law and changes in the tax code that made this assistance possible. There is nothing shadowy about it.

    A direct federal loan to a company may be easier for the average person to understand than tax breaks or incentives, but that doesn’t mean it is any more above-board than the assistance given to the oil industry.

    psharjinian: This is not a healthy economy. This is an economy in crisis

    This economy was still growing until recently, and unemployment is not yet in the double digits.

    During the Great Depression, auto production shrank a staggering 75 percent from 1929 to 1932, and by 1933 the unemployment rate for the entire country was 25 percent.

    THAT was an economy in crisis.

    This slowdown isn’t even as bad as the 1980-82 recession, when Chrysler would have gone bankrupt except for the federal loan guarantees, and Ford was teetering on the abyss as well.

    psharjinian: People who are having trouble meeting ends meet are not troubled by taxes. They are, however, extremely vulnerable to unemployment.

    You and I must be talking to different people. The people I talk to who have been hurt in this slowdown are NOT in the mood to pay more federal taxes.

    Perhaps the people you talk to are in the bottom 50 percent who pay no federal income taxes. I would therefore not be surprised that they are unconcerned about the possibility of increased taxes. They don’t pay them now.

    psharjinian: If your concern is about taxation, you should look to the giant cash conflagration that is defence or Medicare.

    Defense spending is sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution, and is easily cut.

    Medicare is a huge burden, but given that the same people proposing a bailout for Detroit scream bloody murder when anyone suggests even cutting the rate of Medicare’s growth, I wonder why they are advocating the dispersal of federal funds for a new (and, from what I can tell, largely open-ended) commitment.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I am still amazed by people who think raising taxes on the rich or corporations will help the poor. It will not, unless they are so destitute that they need assistance to eat. (A function that almost always is covered by charities whenever the government stops interfering).

    Most jobs in this country are created by small businesses. These are the jobs most likely to be had by anyone, and especially by the low skilled folks. Most of these businesses are owned by a single person who files the businesses taxes and their own on the same return (mine was over an inch thick for 2006 but that’s another rant).

    If you raise taxes on either the owner or the business, there is less money to be spent for payroll or anything else. As a business, less employees are hired, less equipment is bought from other companies, and many companies are switched from growing profitably to cost cutting for survival. Most successful owners don’t actually pay themselves a whole lot, they roll it back into the business. Even if the business was so highly profitable that the owner simply shrugs off the reduced profits, there are ugly consequences.

    Money out of the owners, and from any high wage earners, means that there are spending cuts at their homes. Contractors will not be called for renovations and expansions. Upgrades will not be had for furniture and cars. Steak and lobster will not be served to friends at a dinner party.

    “Good!” screams the liberal populist. “They didn’t need all that stuff anyway. They need to learn how the other half lives.”

    The only problem is now the “other half” is out of a job because the contractor wasn’t called, he let the carpenter, plumber, and mason stay home. Since the furniture and cars were not bought, the salesmen, the delivery team, and others stayed home. And, all the folks from the rancher and fisherman to the caterer and in between also didn’t earn anything.

    Raising taxes will not help the lower or middle classes, even if they get a cut at the expense of the high earners. (Note I did not say rich. Only an idiot thinks that anyone making over a quarter a year is a millionaire. I’m looking at you Gore and Obama).

  • avatar
    cleek

    why does everything have to become a leftist rant courtesy of the perennially indignant?

    back on topic.

    A still photo of a famous(or notorious) grinning mug next to the product just doesn’t seem to cut it any more. Does anyone have any more insight into the shift in GM’s advertstrategy? Can any marketeers chime in on what mkt research supports this “submarine” messaging scheme? And is there any data on the relative success of these strategies?

    Is our life going to become one big “Truman Show”

  • avatar
    shiney

    Funny, it always seems to me that its the right that leads with its emotions, leaping to the most simplistic conclusion with the least depth of thought, ignoring any evidence that may conflict with their underlying ideology. That said, Rush is a lying hypocrite and junkie, whose only real devotions are money and attention. He doesn’t interview, he scolds, and he would quickly become an outspoken liberal if he thought it would keep his ratings up. Any affiliation he has with GM is yet one more reason to buy from Ford.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    “Funny, it always seems to me that its the right that leads with its emotions, leaping to the most simplistic conclusion with the least depth of thought, ignoring any evidence that may conflict with their underlying ideology.”

    I would say that most of that sentiment is shared by many of both sides about the other. Alternately though, the right is usually accused of having no emotions, or at least not any good ones.

    It’s completely natural to self reinforce one’s ideology and world view with almost all new information. Given a hundred news stories, both sides will somehow see proof of their beliefs in 80 of them.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India