Bailout Watch 548: WaPo Carmudgeon's Departing Salvo

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Regular readers will know that we’ve taken Washington Post carmudgeon Warren Brown to task for his shameless Motown cheerleading up to and through the federal bailout. You may have also noticed a huge disconnect between Warren’s blind bailout boosterism and his paper’s entirely skeptical stance on federal intervention in the U.S. automotive industry. In an ironic twist of fate, Warren’s decided to take the WaPo’s latest buyout offer—and do so with all of the grace displayed by his bailout boosting pals in The Motor City. He leaves the paper spilling vitriol all over his colleague’s rejection of Uncle Sam’s “investment” in Government Motors.

I’ll begin [my endless swan song] by arguing against the often inane analyses of the challenges facing the domestic automobile industry, sometimes served up on the editorial and opposite-editorial pages of this otherwise fine journal.

Was that really necessary? Anyway, first, Warren regurgitates all his own pro-dole pro-GM arguments.

We owned General Motors in World War II and in the Korean conflict when we needed it to build tanks and other weapons of limited destruction.

We owned it when we needed it to help build what once was the free world’s strongest middle class . . .

And we owned it after the devastating 9/11 attack on our nation, when it was GM that pulled us from the economic brink and got consumers buying again through a savvy marketing campaign.

I know! Let’s set that to the Lemonheads’ version of Mrs. Robinson! Anyway, Warren sets ’em up . . .

In commenting on the new GM’s future, Robinson writes: “In truth, I don’t see much more than a temporary reprieve [from ultimate failure] for General Motors and a somewhat easier landing for GM workers. Obama said he plans to leave management of the company to the professionals. At this point, I have to wonder why.”

And Warren knocks ’em down . . .

The “bad management” that trapped GM and Toyota in their current unhappy states occurred at the federal level, where politicians repeatedly failed to come up with a sensible national energy policy, balanced to require participation, however painful, from automobile manufacturers, politicians and consumers.

The bad management that slowed sales of new domestic and foreign vehicles to a barely sustainable trickle occurred among federal regulators who were supposed to regulate the banking industry, but who apparently failed to regulate anything of any kind.

So GM’s meltdown is the government’s fault? And now the government will save GM? Yeah, that makes sense.

As for placing bets on future longevity: Here’s betting that GM will be around a lot longer than many of the traditional news outlets — print and broadcast — covering GM today.

On this, we agree. Bt first we should come up with a timeline for the death of traditional news outlets. Judging from this piece and Warren’s departure, it’s not going to take long.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • AG AG on Jun 08, 2009

    Wow, I had no idea Debbie Stabenow was so huge.

  • Nevets248 Nevets248 on Jun 08, 2009

    yep, when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house. Oh,and here from the not-so-great state of Michigan, we refer to her as "stab-and blow"!

  • Lou_BC Actuality a very reasonable question.
  • Lou_BC Peak rocket esthetic in those taillights (last photo)
  • Lou_BC A pickup for most people would be a safe used car bet. Hard use/ abuse is relatively easy to spot and most people do not come close to using their full capabilities.
  • Lorenzo People don't want EVs, they want inexpensive vehicles. EVs are not that. To paraphrase the philosopher Yogi Berra: If people don't wanna buy 'em, how you gonna stop 'em?
  • Ras815 Ok, you weren't kidding. That rear pillar window trick is freakin' awesome. Even in 2024.
Next