Posted on 06/07/2009 11:28:16 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
It would be very easy to only target a handful of Republicans, in a very few “swing states” and then make the statistics come out “neutral” by being far more fair in states where Dems dont have as much of a chance, to begin with.
Dealerships are huge political donors.
They can spew all the crap they want, but ***for now*** they can’t force us to buy any of their crap cars.
bump
ML/NJ
Don’t bet on it! I can see a time where we have no choice but government cars...seems to be the direction we are headed in.
Yes, the motion goes into some detail about why it is necessary to terminate the dealership agreements. It’s far too complex for me to write a paragraph about though. And I believe Chrysler actually does own a few of the dealships, though I could be wrong about that.
One of the most disturbing things in the motion for “relief” is that Chrysler asks that any and all state laws regaring dealership closings/consolidations be essentially voided in order to prevent legal action by third parties that would delay the sale of Chrysler’s assets.
It is patently false to claim that Chrysler has not made public the criteria that it used to determine which dealerships it would close.
vs.
Chrysler has not publicly released the methodologies used to analyze the Project Genesis criteria and they are not likely to do so because that information could logically be considered proprietary in nature.
Unless the someone outside Chrysler can independently reproduce the dealership closing results, then the first statement is a lie.
There has to be a software developer out there who worked on Project Genesis and knows the formulas that were applied to the criteria. I wish he/she would speak out. There is undoubtedly a nondisclosure agreement in place preventing that though.
In other words - any dealer that can be documented to be a Republican or has donated funds to a Republican candidate gets the axe.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I’m not a liar.
Chrysler has released the criteria, i.e. the data elements they considered. They haven’t released the details about “how” they considered the data.
It’s similar to my telling a pollster which factors are important to me in deciding for whom to vote but refusing to disclose how I weighed those factors in coming to a decision.
To be clear, I’m not defending Chrysler or the Obama administration. I believe there is foul play. However, it is absurd for lawmakers, media anchors, and bloggers to state that Chrysler REFUSES to disclose their selection criteria. They obviously didn’t read the motions that were filed, which makes them ignorant of the facts.
I’m not a liar and I didn’t contradict myself.
Last story I heard was that - of ALL the dealers selected by Chrysler for closing - NONE were owned by Chrysler, and ONLY ONE was a democrat donor/owned by a democrat/in a democrat-population zone.
And, true to their propaganda (er, excuses) in the statement above, area and region and population served WERE among the “criteria” chosen.
Well golly gee - that’s vague enough isn’t it?
I mean - that description leaves no room whatsoever to wriggle Chicago thugh politics in there right?
90% of the Chrysler dealership owners are Republican contributors. That goes for those whose dealerships are closing and those whose dealerships are remaining open.
If it’s relevant that the majority of closing dealerships have Republican owners, then it is also relevant that the majority of remaining dealerships also have Republican owners. It’s illogical to consider one without the other.
I don’t doubt there was foul play involved or that Steve Rattner and his thugs had a say-so in which dealerships were targeted but the evidence put forward thus far isn’t definitive rather it’s indicative of small business owners in general.
They aren’t fools. I am sure they made a few exceptions to claim they didn’t do it.
Yes, of course it’s vague. My point is that the claim that Chrysler REFUSES to release their selection criteria is untrue and those who keep repeating that fact, including lawmakers on the hill, look like idiots repeating some rumor they heard on the Internet. They obviously didn’t read the Chrysler motions filed. It is however absolutely fair to say that Chrysler has not released the details explaining how they weighed the factors considered.
It’s similar to my telling a pollster which factors are important to me in deciding for whom to vote but refusing to disclose how I weighed those factors in coming to a decision.
Releasing the categories which were used in making the decision is NOT the same thing releasing the criteria for making the decision. If any aspect of the decision making process is kept secret and therefore cannot be independently verified, then Chrysler has not released the criteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.