What Ray LaHood really meant to say about Toyota

Dear Reader;

It is with some glee that I point out that the latest member of the Obama administration to garner major negative headlines, Secretary of Foot-In-Mouth -- I mean Transportation -- Ray LaHood, is not a conservative.

He clearly is molded in the tradition of Joe Biden, and of our friend, "Vegas" Barack Obama. There are others, but I digress. If you could eat your foot the Obama Administration would be a buffet line ranging from dainty 9's (Pelosi) to Obama's metrosexual 12's.

LaHood was one of just three Republicans elected in the 1994 Republican Revolution who did not sign the Contract with America. He was appointed to his current position by President Obama as a token of bi-partisanship.

Yesterday, apparently being unfamiliar with the exact name and popularity of Toyota (America's No. 1 best seller), LaHood said, "Anybody who owns one of these vehicles (Toyotas), stop driving it, take it to the Toyota dealer..."

A statement like that is a virtual invitation to shut down the American economy. And perhaps is a declaration of war on Japan and the several hundred thousand Americans who work for Toyota and its dealers. Toyota, incidentally, is not organized by the United Auto Workers Union. Doesn't it make you wonder that so much heat could be brought to bear on such a sterling example of non-union success?

But again, I digress.

LaHood later issued a clarifying statement, which essentially said 'you misinterpreted what I said, you fools.' I'm sure he then blamed Fox News but I didn't see it myself.

Idiocy and stupidity are not confined to the Administration. Mr. Toyoda, Chairman of Toyota, was bushwhacked in Switzerland (or some other place far away from where he should have been). He whiffed the softball question about the car's problems, said never mind, and sped away in an

AUDI.

An Audi?

Dear Heavens, when Mr. Toyoda gives up being his own mouthpiece and reaches out to a PR firm, let it be me. There is so much to do, and so little time before Ford and GM buy off all the Toyota customers with their current "we'll give you $1,000 to buy our brand" programs.

Now, a quick word to readers who inexplicably prefer exotic rice burners to Ford F-150 pickup trucks with their great huge thumping American V-8's.

The problems Toyota is having are extremely rare and can be cured with a firm application of the brake. That is, If you haven't already crashed and killed yourself, which really is the definitive method of putting an end to the problem.

In a contest of acceleration (foot on the floor on the gas pedal) vs. braking (foot hard on the brake pedal) the brakes win. The car stops. Every time. Any car -- except Steve Wozniak's 2010 Prius which is either possessed by demons or sabotaged by Bill Gates.

Don't turn off the engine if the car starts to accelerate unless you're strong enough to steer it without power steering. Most men are, most women aren't. If you turn the engine off you'll also lose your power brakes after a few applications. Now you can't steer and you can't stop and you most likely forgot your diaper. Make a firm, steady application of the brakes until the car stops. Slamming on the brakes can lead to loss of control. Pumping them lets the (presumed) runaway engine catch its breath and accelerate the car again.

I offer this advice as somewhat of an expert. In a younger stage of my life I was a driver for several major sports car racing teams. I've driven some of the best cars in the world and I've wrecked them on many of the world's finest race tracks, for all sorts of reasons. I've hit the wall and other cars sideways, head on, going backwards, doing barrel rolls, whatever. I've suffered stuck throttles, no brakes, wheels that fall off and engines that go "boom" in the night. I've run out of sponsors, gotten behind in my steering, bounced off of concrete walls, tire walls, red clay walls and pit walls. I've raced through the rain like an old man with a cane, and in the end I've run all kinds of cars out of gas, out of oil and, most often, out of talent. Don't try this at home, kids. When it comes to wrecking a race car, I'm a pro.

If you're driving a Toyota today, ignore the advice of Ray LaHood. Drive it, but drive it as though your life depends on it. Keep your left foot near the brake pedal. If it starts to accelerate demonically, remember: Apply the brakes firmly and steadily. When you get to the side of the road, turn it off and call for assistance.

Just don't call Ray LaHood. He's still in the buffet line.

Bill Fishburne

Obama's ruined Presidency

The election of Republican Scott Brown to the "Kennedy" seat in Massachusetts sends President Obama, and Congress, a message. "If this is the centerpiece of your Presidency, you're ruined."

The American public, from Virginia to New Jersey to Massachusetts has rejected Obama, the Progressive agenda and the liberal legacy of Ted Kennedy himself. If the will of the voters in these three states is indeed indicative of the mood of the nation, then Obama can kiss his big-government presidency goodbye.

I only know one person who still supports Obama's policies. A life-long liberal, he has his head in the sand. He persists in his belief that Progressives and liberal Democrats will make his, your and my life better with more government programs, more spending, more taxes and fees and more rules and regulations.

"Healthcare is a fundamental human right," he asserts. "Taxes aren't high enough on the rich. Look at Bill Gates. Nobody needs that much money."

Where do you begin with these types of emotional arguments? If you think your corner bank has too much money, is it right for you to stick it up?

Health care is most assuredly not a fundamental human right. The act of providing that care places the responsibility on others. If I'm sick, there is no power on earth that should force any doctor to take care of me. I have to pay for that care. If I have a contract with a doctor, or with an insurance company, then I have the right to the care we contracted for. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A human right is something we are granted by God alone. The right to breathe, the right to live until we die, the right to live free, the right to the pursuit of happiness.

These rights are spelled out in the Constitution. There is no mention of healthcare. Your rights end where my nose begins. To force me, or anyone, to give you healthcare is a violation of someone else's rights. If I contract with you to provide this service then that's different. That should be covered under contract law.

Another thing is the shameful way Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al. have treated the insurance industry. If you buy a healthcare policy from a company it contains provisions as to what is covered, and what is not. You sign the contract. Hopefully, you are bright enough to understand it. If not, well, hopefully again your corporate Insuranace Manager will have explained it to you. But if and when you come in with a claim for something that isn't covered, or when your benefits run out, you'll understand that you have a contract and this isn't covered.

Example: Chiropractic treatment is covered up to a certain point. Like all physical therapy, which can go on forever, there has to be a limit. Maybe 12 treatments is enough. Maybe 26. Pick a number. If you want more you can pay for it unless you're under a group policy where all benefits must be equally available. Maybe you'd be better off if you asked the therapist what a treatment costs, and cut a deal with him or her for 26 sessions. In the long run it might be less expensive than your insurance policy.

Want a discount on medical care? Offer cash. Want to see everything get jacked up? Let the government pay for the basics. Medicare pays about half the cost for a particular medical service. Medicaid pays 30 percent. Blue Cross and United Healthcare negotiate with hospitals to get reduced rates. Is it any wonder a box of tissues costs you, the uninsured payee, $15?

If our healthcare system is broken it's because the government broke it. Medicare and Medicaid don't begin to cover the real costs. Yet doctors and nurses and medical staff personnel are just like us -- they have to eat, too. You can demonize doctors, you can flaggilate insurance companies, and you can mandate that services be delivered to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. But if you want all this, if you want unlimited access to all possible healthcare, be prepared to pay for it. One way or another. Either we pay or it goes away and we become a third-world country.

To blame insurance companies for having contracts is just wrong. If you can only advance your agenda by knocking down straw men, you really don't have much going for you.

_______

Now we hear that Obama wanted to delay his first State of the Union address by a week or more so he could announce that he had delivered on his healthcare promise.

If that's so, we hope he continues to delay it and never gets the opportunity to give it. Maybe in 2014, when all this progressive destructiveness is behind us, a Republican President can say, "The state of the Union is good."

Obama's shameful photo-op

Since there is no shame in the Obama White House’s attempts to manipulate, regulate and control the media, we probably shouldn’t use the word “shameful” in anything remotely related to their actions. But “shameful” is one of the few words that can describe President Barack Obama’s post-midnight visit to Dover Air Force Base, to view the coffins of 18 fallen American servicemen.

Obama flew down on his “solemn” trip with an entourage of 250 people. Included were all his media advisers and 24 sycophantic writers, photographers, broadcasters and producers from 14 media outlets. The fallen warriors included 15 young soldiers and three civilian DEA employees. They arrived with respect and honor on an Air Force C-17 cargo aircraft. They were met by the president and his carefully staged media circus.

All but one of the families refused to allow media coverage of the arrival of their loved ones remains.

The wife of Army Private First Class Brian Bates of Gretna, LA, retracted her approval when she learned President Obama would be there, and that the media entourage would be with him.

In other words, they weren't there for the families. They were there for the show.

Obama knew the families wanted no part of his act even before he left Washington. Nonetheless, he managed to arrange a photo op showing himself saluting as the flag-draped caskets were removed from the aircraft.

The scene was touching. The lighting was perfect. The cameras were staged on the left side of the aircraft, just at the foot of the ramp. The President and a few military officers took their positions on the right. The cameras rolled. The escort details began their work. The President was captured rendering a crisp military salute. The photos and video were released in time for the morning news programs.

The Associated Press dutifully reported the Obama party line: “The dramatic image of a president on the tarmac was a portrait not witnessed in years. Former President George W. Bush spent lots of time with grieving military families but never went to Dover... Obama did so with the weight of knowing he may soon send more troops off to war.”

The fact is that none of our recent wartime presidents have staged greetings at Dover. The sensitive return of these flag-draped coffins to U.S. soil has been off-limits to the media since 1991, under George H.W. Bush. The ruling remained in effect through the subsequent administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Obama, however, urged on by his anti-war, anti-military advisers, changed the policy through a Defense Department announcement on Feb. 26, 2009.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in an environment of control, where willing reporters ask questions that are suggested, even dictated, by the Obama staff.

On October 18, it was learned that in January, speaking in San Jose, Dominican Republic, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed Obama’s campaign media strategy to the leftist Global Foundation for Democracy and Development. “Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control,” Dunn said.

In another speech this summer, Dunn said the two people she called on for inspiration were Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa. She admired Mao, she said, because he fought his war his way and didn’t listen to anyone else. She neglected to point out that his way involved killing 44 million people between 1946 and the time of his death in 1975.

It seems to me that a communications director who says she admires Chairman Mao so much might actually mean what she says. If so, Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Regarding the distinctions between the Obama and Bush approaches to fallen soldiers, Bush 41 and 43, as well as Bill Clinton, stayed away from the intensely personal Dover receptions and instead met with families privately. Both Bushs also hand-wrote a condolence letter to every family of a person who died in action. Obama has neither met with the families nor written any letters.

How the sycophantic media treats Bush vs. Obama is illustrated by the Cindy Sheehan story. Pat and Cindy Sheehan, grieving parents of fallen Army SP4 Casey Sheehan, met with Bush in Seattle in July, 2004. There were 16 other military families present. The media was not allowed anywhere near the event.

Afterwards, Pat Sheehan said, “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us.”

Less than a year later, by then separated from her husband, Cindy Sheehan was a featured speaker at the Veterans for Peace annual convention in Dallas. “That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war," she proclaimed.

Where is Sheehan now, as Obama "dithers" (my new favorite word for this administration) over what to do in Afghanistan. Soldiers continue to fight and die in Afghanistan while Obama seeks out photo-ops rather than make important decisions.

Obama has never understood the military, or the concept of service. Everything he has done with them has been built around his non-stop campaigning. The Dover visit simply marked a new low point. On June 28, 2008, he visited Walter Reed Medical Center for less than an hour, then rushed out to address a political rally. His campaign carefully outlined his schedule, then gratuitously announced that the media would not be allowed to accompany him inside the hospital.

Obama also skipped a visit with wounded American troops at the Landstuhl hospital in Germany immediately prior to his July 2008 “Citizen of the World” speech in Berlin. He had scheduled a media tour of the Landstuhl hospital. When his campaign learned that he was welcome but the cameras were not, he canceled the visit. His staff said there was no relation between the cancellation and the barring of cameras.

Instead, photographers were invited to watch then-candidate Obama shoot hoops at a gymnasium.

I wrote last week that I believe his upcoming decision on troop levels in Afghanistan would amount to retrenchment into the large population centers. I believe he will send in more rear-echelon troops to do public works projects, and fewer trigger-pullers. History will then record that Obama sought peace, not war. And when the Taliban control everything outside the gates and stage public executions and mutilations of anyone who dares to deal with the Americans, Obama will be able to withdraw before the 2012 elections. "I tried to make peace," he might say, "but all they wanted was war."

I call it the slow-bleed policy. He'll let our troops bleed for a year or so, then bring them home. He'll make more trips to Dover and he'll be sympathetic as he searches for political solutions, up to and including recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan at least, and possibly in Pakistan as well.

To this president, he is the ultimate celebrity, all the world is his stage and all the nations are his audience, breathlessly awaiting the next display of his genius and oratorical talents. The coffins of our fallen soldiers are nothing more than props.

##

Obama fuels Dems growing unpopularity

If President Obama’s growing unpopularity with his other socialist programs wasn’t bad enough, his Monday warning to Wall Street should just about ice the cake of his 2012 defeat. It amounted to a slap in the face to capitalism, issued by a President whose entire life has demonstrated his disdain for the free enterprise system.

On the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, whose greatest sin was to be losers in trading bad mortgages lending institutions made under Congressional mandates, Mr. Obama sounded more and more like a man who determined to ruin the country and lead his party to electoral defeat.

Ten months ago if you had predicted that 2012, ore even 2010, would be a Republican year you’d have been laughed off the street. Five months ago you’d have been told you were still upset about the election and didn’t understand the complexity, nuances and depth of President Obama’s programs.

Say it today and people nod their heads and say you’re right. We said it last week. Now, after the 9-12 protests, it’s time to say it again.

Mr. Obama has appointed more worthless bureaucrats and unconstitutional Czars than Heinz has varieties. He’s used up his 100-day honeymoon, used up his first six months of good will, and has now used up all his capital as he attempts to reshape the country in the image of the old Soviet Union.

That’s no joke. Mr. Obama’s good-will tank is as empty as the Treasury. He gave control of General Motors and Chrysler Corporation to the UAW, quintupled the money supply and is in the process of destroying the world’s finest health care system.

Medicine in the dirt

Wait a minute: Didn’t the UN’s World Health Organization rate France’s health care system No. 1 and the U.S. as No. 37? That’s true, but if you consider the source and how differently things are done in the two systems you quickly realize they’re not comparable.

In France, if you have a traffic accident, the doctor rides the ambulance. Remember Princess Diana’s tragic accident. She was treated at the scene, not transported. According to Wikipedia, “Diana was taken by ambulance to Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, but the ambulance stopped for almost one hour in the street, just hundreds of metres from the hospital as they attempted to stabilize her...”

In the U.S. she would have been stabilized as best the EMT or Paramedic could, then transported immediately to a hospital where every medical resource would be available. Which would you prefer: To be treated lying in the dirt beside your wrecked car or in an ultra-modern trauma center?

In the U.S., if she died en route she would not be pronounced until she arrived at the hospital. In France, she would never become a medical failure because she would have died at the scene, not in a hospital. Statistics lie and liars love statistics.

Our medical system isn’t perfect but it’s really, really good. And it could be better if we didn’t spend up to one-third of our medical budgets on defensive medicine.

For an eye-opener, check out the blog at Emergency Physicians Monthly website, www.epmonthly.com. One ER doctor documents the “just in case” testing he ordered during one shift. It’s astounding, but if any of us were in his (or her) shoes we’d do the same thing lest we wind up in a courtroom with our careers and financial futures in the hands of a jury. When Democratic politicians say personal injury lawsuits are just a small part of our total medical expense, they’re only talking about the jury awards.


The 9-12 Protests

And where were the “liberal” news media during the 9-12 protests in this past Saturday?

If you read the major newspapers, watched ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or CNN, you'd be justified in saying, "What protests?" The New York Times covered Mr. Obama’s talk in front of 15,000 in Minneapolis on page 35, put two stories about overseas poverty on the front page, and relegated the hundreds of thousands – or millions – at the 9-12 event to page 37. They said the demonstrators “numbered well into the tens of thousands”. ABC News said “60,000 to 70,000".

Participants, photos and science tell a different story. Kiki Henry of Cashiers, N.C., was there and reports D.C. police estimated it at “1.5 to 2 million”. The Humble Libertarian website estimates “over one million”, says it was at least as large as the Obama inauguration crowd, and documents it with charts and photos. Check it out at www.humblelibertarian.com. The University of Indiana applied computer science to the photos and said there were 1.7 million people there. Compare that to 1.25 million at the Obama inauguration. What does that tell you about his popularity at this point?

Other odd facts: 1) The DC police told protesters they were the most polite they had ever seen. 2) There were no arrests. 3) There was very little trash strewn about. Photos of the Mall area after the event show neat piles near the overflowing trash cans. 4) The National Park Service TV cameras, used to document the size and behavior of crowds, were mysteriously turned off throughout the event.

George Orwell was right. Newspeak and Big Brother have taken over. Thank God for these demonstrators standing up for America in opposition to the unlimited expansion of government and federal power. I don't know if Mr. Obama is a socialist or a communist, but I know a capitalist when I see one and he ain't it. I don't think the American people will stand for this much longer. The 2010 Congressional elections can't get here soon enough to undo the damage he and his henchmen are wreaking on our society.

Driven by incompetence, narcissism and political greed, Mr. Obama continues on his course of self-aggrandizement and the beatification of socialist icons such as the union bosses. Meanwhile, the momentum of public opinion has swung far, far away from the Democratic Party. It could swing back, but not unless the majority Zebra party changes its stripes. That isn’t going to happen. A currently-being-forged coalition of Republicans and Unaffiliated voters will soon realize that conservative Republicans are the only hope of putting the Constitution back in place.

##

Coming home

Time flies. I thought this when I was in the Army and I think it is true. But it has not flown so quickly these past two years. My wife and I have anxiously awaited every Sunday morning, around 7:30, for an Internet-based phone call from our son in Korea.

Rob is an Army medic attached to the Yongsan Army Hospital in Seoul. He wraps up his tour there in late September and will be home for a few days before heading off to his next post. We are very proud of him and his service, but every parent of a person in uniform feels that way so we'll let it go.

We also won't tie this commentary in with politics. Not in any way. Soldiers don't get paid to be political. Their duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States through the full application of their God-given abilities, combined with their intelligence and their training. They have a duty to perform, they get their orders, and they carry out their missions. God bless them each and every one.

I can't help but wonder if my parents had the same feelings my wife and I have experienced these past two years. Rob may be in a relatively safe place compared to many other soldiers, but there is always reason for concern. Accidents could happen and the lunatic North Korean regime could explode the peninsula into another war at any time. There is no such thing as an off-limits area such as a hospital when you're dealing with crazy people. The Marine Corps. has it right when they say, "Every Marine is a rifleman, first and last". I totally agree. When there's shooting to be done your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) doesn't matter at all. What matters is your ability to follow orders, work as a combat team, and shoot straight.

That's it for today. Rob's coming home. Thanks be to God!

The man behind the curtain

The following editorial, authored by Bill Fishburne, appeared in the 8/27/09 editions of the Asheville and Hendersonville Tribune newspapers.

The man behind the curtain

The Wizard of Oz told Dorothy to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” The same might be said for Rep. Heath Shuler’s current game of hide-and-sneak on the health care issue. While our official Blue Dog Democrat (the logo is on his website even if the U.S. and State flags aren’t) sneaks around the 11th District avoiding town hall meetings, his vote in favor of the ruinous Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill threatens our state and nation with economic ruin.

We’re preoccupied with moaning and groaning about the pain the 1,017-page HR3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 bill will cause. The bigger action, the bigger threat, continues to be the 1,427 pages of Waxman-Markey. Shuler’s vote on June 16 in favor of that particularly odious exercise in power politics helped it pass the House 219-212. In the long term, while national public health care may pull granny’s plug, Waxman-Markey will cost us our freedom.

In our opinion, supported by polls and Fox News, national public health care is doomed thanks to Republicans and the Taxed Enough Already/9-12 movement. Shuler can stay in hiding, or in the friendly environs of the Matt Cave for all we care. Waxman-Markey is in the Senate and it is a bigger threat than the health care bill.

The voters deserve more respect. The Tea Party folks are very nice. They consist largely of unaffiliated voters, Republicans, conservative Democrats, senior citizens, military veterans, housewives and moms. Few if any (probably none) have ever done anything worse than speed, or pray in public. It’s a pity that the great, huge, multi-millionaire former NFL star they elected doesn’t have the courage to stand up in front of them. Heck, he stands up for himself. Shuler owns TVA-lakefront property in Tennessee that received special dispensation for water access while he sits on a TVA supervisory committee. The issue has been referred to the House Ethics Committee, which apparently has delayed action due to a shortage of whitewash.

Waxman-Markey is a fairly thick bill. There are legitimate concerns that Rep. Shuler either didn’t read it or doesn’t understand it. Most independent scholars who have read it, including those at the Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation, are unrelenting in their opposition.

Writing in Heartland’s Environment & Climate New, H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., reports that the Congressional Budget Office says the Waxman-Markey bill would cost $846 billion in the next decade alone. These fees would be paid for permits to emit carbon dioxide based on the disputable theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing global warming.

Government funded scientists say pay no attention to the man behind that curtain, either. Atmospheric CO2 levels have always trailed global temperature increases by a few hundred years. Government scientists want to turn that around so that CO2 causes global warming. Without government funding this just wouldn’t be an issue. The sun would still cause the earth to heat and cool, as it did for millennia before Pierre L’Enfant laid out the town that is the source of what currently ails us.

If you’re in science you are either going to toe the line in what you report or you are going to be in a government schoolroom teaching kids to say “want fries with that?” John Tierney, science columnist for (BEGIN ITALICS)The New York Times(END ITALICS) believes money corrupts science. On March 6, 2008, after The Heartland Institute put on a conference on global warming in New York which Al Gore and other major global warming beneficiaries belittled and refused to attend, Tierney wrote:

“Now, you may trust the government agencies more than you do private companies because the agencies are supposed to be serving the public, not increasing profits for shareholders. But the officials running the agencies have their own agendas — like increasing their budgets and power and prestige, which can be done by supporting research demonstrating that there’s a terrible problem for the agency to solve...”

Tierney took no position on the issue itself, but concluded that the conference was a legitimate forum for debate of the global warming issue.

Dr. Burnette wonders what the true purpose of Waxman-Markey is when all the common-sense amendments were shot down. Oddly, they were all introduced by Republicans.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) offered an amendment that would have suspended the emission caps in the United States if China (the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter) and India did not adopt similarly stringent regulations. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) proposed suspending the act if unemployment reaches 15 percent, and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) offered an amendment suspending the act if 10,000 steel jobs were lost. All were defeated on party-line votes.

As we reported in July, Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis predicted the loss of 3,252 jobs in Western North Carolina in 2012 alone. Between 2015 and 2035, as the economy plunges to 3rd World status, Heritage shows the gross state product will lose $9,139 million and we will lose 38,907 jobs.

It is difficult to believe Shuler wasn’t aware of all this. It wasn’t an inconsequential vote to recess for lunch. This one was important, and Shuler caved. There were 44 Democrats who had the courage to stand against their party’s leadership. Bully for them, and boos for Shuler, who came back to the district and said he voted for Waxman-Markey “when I found out it was revenue neutral.”

He’s not the Mad Hatter, but he played him on television.

Next November, when Shuler puts on his out-of-district funded campaign (blue) dog-and-pony show about his courageous stands against the liberal majority, just remember you’re watching the Wizard. And he doesn’t want you to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

##

The crisis at Chrysler

This isn’t about the evil cabal of Michigan’s unions and allegedly corrupt corporate bosses. That’s an issue we’re reserving for a slow day in the newsroom. This is about how Daimler-Benz took control of Chrysler in what was supposed to be a “merger of equals” and raped America’s 3rd largest automaker. The result today is a once-proud American corporation that is in the throes of reorganization and has been taken over (55 percent) by the United Autoworkers Union and its Democratic party henchmen.

On the day of the merger, May 7, 1998, Daimler had 300,000 employees worldwide vs. just 121,000 for Chrysler. From the outset you knew it wasn’t going to be a “merger of equals” as described by the Detroit and New York Times. Daimler Chairman Juergen Schremp may have said that but his exact quote from the joint news release was a “Perfect fit of two market leaders for further global growth.”

Chrysler’s then-Chairman, Bob Eaton, said “World class products and brands complement each other.” We’ve often wondered what and who he was talking about. One of the first things Daimler did was to lay off as many Chrysler engineers and other white collar workers as possible and jerk control and decision making back to the German boardroom.

The owners of “great products and brands” don’t behave that way in mergers of equals.

I sold a company to a German firm a few years back. I knew how it would go before it happened. I went in the office at 10 a.m. and met with the President of the firm's US operations. I gave him our final proposal, in response to his earlier offer. He thanked me and reviewed it in the conference room. Then he excused himself, went to his office and made a telephone call back to Germany, where the firm's full Board of Directors waited. After 15 minutes he returned and invited us to lunch. We came back an hour and a half later and the German Board had added some stipulations. I looked them over and agreed. He left the room again, made another telephone call, then came back and accepted our offer.

Top down management. That's how they do it. That's not how Chrysler did it. The merger was doomed from the outset.

The next 10 years of Chrysler history reflected the fact that Daimler was in full control and the Americans were being squeezed out. Chrysler’s automotive designs of the time were full of promise with a dramatic “cab-forward” look that was as stunning as the finned Plymouth Fury of 1957, or the dramatic winged Plymouths and Dodges that set the pace in NASCAR with their 427 cu. in. hemispherical head V-8's in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Among America’s Big Three automakers, Chrysler had a reputation for engineering excellence. When you sat in a pre-merger Chrysler car you could look at the details and be amazed at how carefully things were thought out. The clocks, the speedometer, the interface between controls and consumer were well done. The same clock might be in multiple cars, but it was always fitting and proper, not tackily emblazoned with chrome as in a GM Buick, or tacked on as an afterthought as in a cheap Ford.

The Germans, unfortunately, didn’t understand the Chrysler buyer or the once-proud company’s corporate management style. The result was that top talent was bled off or let go and the German engineers proved themselves incompetent to design inexpensive cars for the American market. There was a saying in the industry (before commonality of engines and parts blurred, then erased, product line distinctions) that any fool could design a water pump for a Cadillac, where cost is no object, but it took a genius to design one for a Chevrolet.

Daimler’s engineers ran into a brick wall. The Americans they let go knew what it took to get the job done. Inside the post-merger cab-forward Sebring and Cirrus designs, which had an appealing look, there was little to look at. The key engineers and stylists had been cut. The interiors reeked of plastic and lack of attention to detail. Edges were left exposed. Leather seats didn’t look plush enough and felt worse after a long drive. Turn signal stalks were so sloppy they felt like they they might never make contact, or even fall off. There was no consistency, no statement of quality. The cars sold at acceptable levels and gave Chrysler Corporation cars a distinctive look, but the fit and finish reflected the fact that in rejecting the uniquely American Chrysler culture, Daimler had cut too deep.

The merger almost didn’t happen. Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, father of the Ford Mustang in the 1960's and the man who turned Chrysler around in the early 1980's, worked with financier Kirk Kerkorian to buy Chrysler and take it private in 1995-96. Chrysler’s board resisted and Kerkorian proved an unreliable partner. The self-made Las Vegas casino billionaire, who invested and became Chrysler’s largest shareholder, dropped Iacocca and his automotive expertise to work with Daimler and the Chrysler board. When the merger was complete, Iacocca was in the ditch, Daimler-Benz owned Chrysler and Kerkorian’s exit visa had somehow made him the single largest shareholder in Airbus Industries.

The Daimler-Chrysler deal never was about two automotive companies with synergy. It was about egos and wallets and fat-cat financiers looking for the deal of a lifetime. It was the ultimate triumph of bean counters over car guys. Chrysler prided itself in its open management style, it’s lack of neckties in the cafeteria, the intermingling of production and management personnel, its minivans and Jeeps. It was informal Americana at its best, According to Taken for a Ride: How Daimler-Benz Drove off with Chrysler by Bill Vlasic and Bradley A. Stertz, Chrysler’s dynamism was stifled and smothered under Daimler’s formal German control. The companies were dead opposites. Daimler epitomized order, structure and formality while Chrysler reveled in its informal, cross-functional teams who favored wide-open, unstructured discussions and took decision making to the lowest possible level.

Daimler-Benz, with its flagship Mercedes brand, will continue to be one of the world’s greatest car makers. Chrysler won’t. It has suffered the indignity of bankruptcy and will never again be what it was. The UAW says it will sell its stock to support its pension funds, but we suspect there will be strings, or at least a large enough retention of stock to effectively control the company. The UAW will never allow its workers to be laid off or to suffer financially. The U.S. government, completely and totally controlled by the Democratic Party, with its stake in the emerging new Chrylser Corporation, is the perfect rich uncle the UAW needs to prop up the balance sheet.

American free enterprise lost this battle. But it didn’t just happen last week.

##