You're Not Wrong Paul Mack; You're Just An Asshole

youre not wrong paul mack youre just an asshole

We catch some flack around here for [allegedly] taking the fight to Detroit a little harder than patriotism demands. But compared to the latest spleen-venting by Chicago Tribune scribe Paul Mack, we're about as critical as a golden retriever puppy on benzodiazepines. Mack's thesis: "GM has traded in its navy blue suits and wingtip shoes for tie-dyed shirts and sandals, and is betting its future on the eco-trifecta of fuel efficiency, flex-fuel capability and electric motors. It is unclear whether the makeover is more than skin-deep, but history provides ample room for skepticism." So we're all on the same page right? Er, no. Because when you're criticizing GM, the very least you can do is stick to the facts re: its doomedness. After all, there are so many. So when Mack pooh-poohs the Volt program because critics have "argued" that the EV1 was DOA to "prove CARB wrong," he's trotting out the worst possible argument when so many better ones exist. And rather than criticizing GM's dependence on ethanol based on the fuel's inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is "devoid of an ethanol infrastructure." And adding insults to weak criticism, Mack fills logic gaps with ad hominem put-downs. Calling GM's 30mpg mileage claims "the stuff of dreams for men like George Jetson," Mack says the Japanese automakers achieved the 30mpg goal in the 1970s. Which must mean he'd rather drive a Mk. 1 Accord than "the 2009 Chevy Malibu-now with Betamax!" By feeding his readers invective and insults rather than the truth, Mack has passed on a "teachable moment." Like Walter from the Big Lebowski, he's not wrong… he's just an asshole.

Join the conversation
2 of 27 comments
  • GMInnovation GMInnovation on Jul 29, 2008

    To those of you who said they'd rather drive a first-gen Accord than a 2009 Malibu -- really? The first gen Accord was the size of today's Civic, with a 1.6L, 68-HP engine and manual transmission; it burned leaded fuel and had almost no emissions equipment. I'm a GM employee and admit I am biased. But really, go test drive a new Malibu before you continue to badmouth my company. I drive a Malibu and get 27 MPG all-around; 33 on the highway. Things have changed at GM -- we are a progressive, innovative company delivering great new products. Outside of the US, we're enjoying record sales, solid financial results and a proven track record of quality. Help me out here: how do we get Americans to give us a fair shake?

  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Jul 30, 2008

    Several of the current GM sedans ARE really nice. Take this from a repeat Honda and VW customer. I'd ding them though on their bulkiness. I'm sure that the focus groups advised GM to build a bulky vehicle - they prob think these cars look brawny or strong. I think they just look fat. Dunno what it is about GM vehicles but even the small vehicles look bulky. I prefer the leaner looks of the import compacts. All of this is moot b/c since gas dropped 20 cents here in the last week, the SUVs and trucks will be back on the road in droves... VBG! I hope America takes the recent $4 gas to be a warning shot from the global economy. I don't expect America to really change though. Thing smight improve for the short term and we'll forget it all and be right back in the hot seat the next time. One thing is for sure - China and India are not sleeping giants - they are all fired up. We'll be competiting with them for fuel and raw materials forever.

  • Inside Looking Out Why EBFlex dominates this EV discussion? Just because he is a Ford expert?
  • Marky S. Very nice article and photos. I am a HUGE Edsel fan. I have always been fascinated with the "Charlie Brown of Cars." Allow me to make a minor correction to add here: the Pacer line was the second-from-bottom rung Edsel, not the entry-level trim. That would be the Edsel Ranger for 1958. It had the widest array of body styles. The Ranger 2-door sedan (with a "B-pillar", not a pillarless hardtop), was priced at $2,484. So, the Ranger and Pacer both used the smaller Ford body. The next two upscale Edsel's were based on the Mercury body, are were: Corsair, and, top-line Citation. Although the 1959 style is my fav. I would love a '58 Edsel Pacer 4-door hardtop sedan!
  • Lou_BC Stupid to kill the 6ft box in the crewcab. That's the most common Canyon/Colorado trim I see. That kills the utility of a small truck. The extended cab was a poor seller so that makes sense. GM should have kept the diesel. It's a decent engine that mates well with the 6 speed. Fuel economy is impressive.
  • Lou_BC High end EV's are selling well. Car companies are taking advantage of that fact. I see quite a few $100k pickups in my travels so why is that ok but $100k EV's are bad? The cynical side of me sees car companies tack on 8k premiums to EV's around the time we see governments up EV credits. Coincidence? No fooking way.
  • EBFlex "I'd add to that right now, demand is higher than supply, so basic business rules say to raise the price."Demand is very low. Supply is even lower. Saying that demand is outstripping supply without providing context is dishonest at best.