I guess the first question when I hit a dealership is.......Who did you support for president? If they say obama, I walk.

Don't be dense, Glenn. The guy you talk to when you buy a car is the salesperson. The data here is talking about the OWNER, who you never see on the lot except in very limited circumstances.

Glenn, the choice will be easy for me. No way I'm buying a car from a government owned or run company. Even Ford is suspect, because I don't want to give a dime to the UAW.

Identity politics, aka racism, is what we've come to expect from I One and his posse. We The People are not surprised at this affirmative action. Billions for ACORN, millions more for the BET founder, a racist nominee for the Supreme Court. Worse is yet to come, and the beat down goes on.

Eliminating the competition. Hmmm.....right out of the Chicago style political book. Barry knows all about that.

Business issues are always my favorites because I've been a long time businessman myself. But the particular Chrysler dealership closings have no connection to the Obama Administration whatsoever, but to the sales volume output of some dealerships that are in financial trouble that are getting big fleets of vehicles on credit and are slow to pay back as well expensive co-opt advertising cutbacks from Chrysler. For example in Portland, the much smaller volume Timberline Dodge which has reduced it's building size due to lower sales is slated to close by Chrysler because it is only drawing sales and advertising revenues from the much larger and successful Chrysler dealer that is virtually across the street from this Dodge dealer. Timberline Dodge is a longtime dealer with many of it's own paid ads, and I'd hate to see it close personally, but this dealer and the larger dealer across the street are really competing for the same customers, slicing the market for Chrysler cars pretty thin on the same street. Chrysler is simply opting for supporting the stronger dealer. There is nothing to prevent Timberline from becoming a dealer for another brand such as KIA or Hyundai, which are both proving some market growth overall despite the bad economy.

The Obama Administration has no decision making powers as to which exact Chrysler dealerships are being slated to close, that's determined by the marketplace such as sales volume or dealers that take out a huge fleet of vehicles on credit, but don't have the sales volume to pay for the inventory, the same business conditions that close down a business even in non-recession times.

The RJL dealerships likely aren't being closed because they are a major dealership chain with decent sales, and able to pay back Chrysler for the vehicles taken out on 90 and 120 day credit contracts, compared to tiny one shop dealers who are missing credit payments to Chrysler for inventory.

As an example, use a credit card to charge items, and then start missing your payments. You'll soon find your credit cutoff. That's where some Chrysler dealers are now finding themselves today. Chrysler needs to trim costs by cutting dealers with big inventories with no means to pay back the credit they owe.

Dear Leader is caught again. But our lovely MSM will protect him.

The media will be rewarded with millions of bail-out dollars.

Oh, what a country we have become.

This is pure coincidence. Just because we have a wealthy, successful, black Obamalala supporter who owns these dealerships, has nothing to do with which dealerships will be closed. This is based on fairness as Obamalala sees it. After all, the UAW workers get a majority of the shares in Chrysler and debt holders get less than thirty cents on the dollar. That's fair. The UAW have sacrificed with low wages and lack of benefits for such a long time they deserve it.To think the Obamalala administration would have a hidden agenda here is ridiculous. No really.

Paul Hooson: You post very conveniently ignores several factors. First, are the dealerships of RNC donors being targeted? The early indicators are that this may be so as the dealerships closed have overwhelming supported the RNC. Thus far, an analysis of the political contributions of the closed dealerships indicate right-leaning tendencies. More data is being collected on the surviving dealerships.
Second, Reuters reported that a lawyer representing a dealership, when disposing the CEO, came to the conclusion that Chrysler did not see the wisdom of closing 25 percent of it point of service operations.
Third, you make a comparison to business failures in a non-recessionary period. This is a false comparison. In a business failure, the customers don't support the business for whatever reason. In this case, the a more proper term would be business assassination. These dealerships aren't dying of natural causes, they're being taken out and shot.
Personally, I won't touch a GM or a Chrysler product. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Instead, they've been given to the unions or, in GM's case where apparently the union didn't even want it, the government. I'll vote with my dollars.
The funny part is that Ford will probably make it because they can appeal to 100 percent of the population. The other two probably won't because they have already cut their customer base 25 percent

The NYT returns hundreds of hits on a search of "Cheney", "secret", and "energy" regarding his energy meetings early on (which the government was sued over, unsuccessfully) over the past 9 years. Similar coverage of Biden's remarks about paying back unions and now unions being offered 39% (at first) of GM and now almost 20%?

Not so much. In fact I couldn't get a single hit of the NY papers I searched for Biden's "dance" comment.

Hello PWD. The problem with this conspiracy theory here is that the Obama Administration has absolutely nothing to do with deciding which unprofitable dealers Chrysler is closing to cut inventory credit costs or co-opt advertising costs.

The RJL chain is large enough that it apparently has good cash flow in order to pay for the 90 and 120 day inventory offered on credit from Chrysler to keep all dealerships open, compared to some failing single dealerships unable to pay for for the 90 to 120 day inventory bought on credit from Chrysler slated to close.

My first business was a record store, and I secured a credit line from a number of distributors as well as support from Capital Records and Warner Bros., which worked fine during the 1970's up until the 1980 recession, when sales slowed down by 80% in the local record business, resulting in less available industry credit and less record company support, resulting in my decision to close that business and then to branch into bookstores and TV shops instead. My TV business survived across the street from a larger TV business, because I operated on a cash basis, while the dealership across the street took out business inventory credit equal to several football fields of TVs and appliances from GE and other large creditors, but couldn't afford to pay for them, and then declared bankruptcy and closed.

Tightening industry credit is enough of a factor to close many businesses. It is also the prime factor with the closing of Chrysler dealerships as well. I don't understand how some here believe that the Obama Administration is deciding these internal Chrysler credit decisions or dealership closing questions. That's just not the way that business or business credit works. A dealer that can't pay for 90 or 120 day inventory are the one's being slated to close by Chrysler. How is the Obama Administration somehow responsible for credit decisions such as this? This just doesn't make any sense to anyone who has ever managed a company or had major business credit with large corporations. Presidential administrations don't decide which company receives credit or not. That's my premise here. Let's hear from others who have been in business about this credit issue. But business credit is certainly not decided by any White House.

"but appears to getting it's six markets cleared of competitors"

And there Kevin you have hit the nail on the head- even if you didn't mean to. Not just about this particular dealership that is benefiting from Chicago style politics, but ALL the dealership closings.

Dealerships don't cost the manufacturer money. They are privately owned businesses. They make money when the sell cars and loose money if they don't sell enough of them, but the manufacturer doesen't loose money if the dealership looses money.

But that's not what this is about. This is all about Obama and the rest of the Marxists in his adminstration who now control much of the auto industry eliminating competition among dealers so they can CHARGE THE AMERICAN CONSUMERS MORE FOR THE PIECE OF SHIT CARS THEY MAKE!!!

If we had a fair an honest press in this country maybe one reporter or news network would probe this a little and report this simple fact but we don't so the information retarded public actually belives that closing dealerships will save the manufacturers money.

It will allow them to make more money off people who are willing to pay even more money for a low quality product, but that is a lot different than saving money!

"Paul Hooson: You post very conveniently ignores several factors."

Pvd,

You're new here so let me clue you in on something. Every Hooson post does that. I don't read what that Marxist asshole writes anymore, but I bet he also referenced some of his many failed businesses (even though he doesn't point out that they were obviously failures) as examples of why communism is so great.

It's best to just ignore him. He not work arguing with. (Unless you need something to laugh about.)

P. Bunyan, actually Chrysler's dealer problem is all about unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots bought on 90 and 120 credit contracts, not eliminating competition as you suggest.

While Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru and BMW all have dealer inventories in the 60 day range, easily able to be paid off on the existing 90 and 120 day credit contracts, Chrysler dealers have huge inventories of models such as Avenger and Sebring, 242 day supplies, Crossfire, 300 day supply, And Jeep models like Patriot with over 200 day supplies. When a Chrysler dealer cannot pay for a vehicle in less than 200 or more days, that creates a cash flow problem for Chrysler and forces Chrysler to seek the closing of dealers who cannot pay for inventory within a reason time-frame.

You figure the math here. If a Toyota dealer can pay for a vehicle on credit within 60 days, but a Chrysler dealer needs 200 or 300 days to sell a product, then tell me which dealership is healthy and not a credit drain for the manufacturer offering the dealer credit.

Paul Hooson:

Can you help me understand how two dealers in the same block selling the same product is bad for the product manufacturer? Are you suggesting that they have to sell below cost, and are somehow passing the loss along?

I thought not.

Paul, while I suspect you are allergic to hyperlinks... please cite your data when you claim that the dealerships closing are losing money where the ones left alive are not.

Paul Hooson, would you at least agree that, hypothetically, if this story is true, then it would be a serious scandal and something to be concerned about?

P. Bunyan, I have to mention, because it is a pet peeve of mine, the word is Lose not Loose.

I hope that this story gets lots and lots of exposure!

A pattern is emerging and it's important that every single instance gets exposed so that more and more people see it.

Hello Bill and SCSI. A Chrysler dealership doesn't necessarily have to be losing money to close, as many can somewhat support themselves through service work and many of the salesmen work on commission with very low minimum salaries.

But the problem is with dealers with big supplies of unsold vehicles, 200 to 300 day supplies, unable to pay off 90 or 120 credit contracts with Chrysler. Right away, I think about that bigger TV and appliance dealer across the street from my smaller TV business that took out the equivalent of several football fields of TVs and appliances on credit from GE and other suppliers, but then was unable to pay for the inventory and GE and the other creditors forced bankruptcy and closed the store. Certainly the dealership was an outlet for GE appliances and TVs. But when the dealer couldn't pay for the stock, then what good are they to GE? What good are Chrysler dealers with 200 or more days worth of Chrysler inventory sitting on their lots, unable to repay Chrysler for their products?

Chrysler cutting some high credit risk dealers who are slow to pay or tie up excessive inventory on credit or draw expensive advertising support in comparison to very poor sales need to be compared to a credit card company eliminating some bad risk customers.

Eric, hypothetically speaking if some scandal existed where some political donors were rewarded and others punished would be a serious matter. But the White House really has nothing to do with authorizing which dealers receive credit for inventory from Chrysler or not any more than the White House decides whether an individual receives a VISA or MASTERCARD.

On Wizbang Blue, I've already run two posts on this dealership closing question. However, my opinion continues to evolve on the subject as more information becomes available. I'll certainly write more about this issue as the issue evolves. But I just disagree with the premise here that the White House makes credit decisions for Chrysler or any other business based on political donations. That's just not the way that things work in business.

Sooooo. No links.

Paul Hooosoon wrote

"That's just not the way that things work in business.
"

Well that statement was true until about 4 months ago.

BTW Paul Hoosoon

They are closing at least one 5 star dealership and dealerships meeting all sales expectations

Unlike you I use links

http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x72362783/Schock-criticizes-plan-to-close-two-Chrysler-dealerships

".S. Rep. Aaron Schock blasted Chrysler's decision to shutter nearly 800 dealerships across the country, including two here that he and others say are making money and not costing the automaker a dime.

Joined by Gary Uftring, owner of Uftring Auto Mall, Schock stressed that there should be greater accountability of the governmental task force tapped by the Obama administration to review the overhaul of the domestic auto industry.

"This happened not because they failed, not because of market pressure, but because of a third party, the government, which intervened," the congressman said, saying the government shouldn't be in the business of dictating business decisions to an entire industry.

To him, the decision to close shop makes no sense. He claims he met all sales expectations and never cost Chrysler money. Rather, he said, he was a "Five Star" dealership, the highest rating Chrysler gives, and one of the better-selling dealerships.
Terry Allen, whose Chrysler dealership in Mason City will be eliminated, said his business was the top sales tax generator in the area. He, like Uftring, said he met or exceeded all expectations from the car maker but in the end, has about three weeks left as a dealer."

Archer Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep has/had many dealerships in Houston and all successful for years. All were taken from him. Why? I don't know, but something stinks. Success is success. Maybe the unions know? ww

tahts how it works in Chicago

opps....That,not tahts.

Retired Military, I don't know what to say in the case of those two dealerships you cite here. They don't appear to meet my definition of a failing business creating a credit drag for Chrysler. I'd like to hear more information why those two dealers are being forced to close.

In the case of the TV and appliance business I cited earlier, they were selling stock they bought on credit from GE to pay operating expenses such as rent, lights, salaries, etc. and just didn't have revenues to pay for the credit bills to GE. GE had to force bankruptcy while there was something left in equity value.

I just don't know what factors went into Chrysler's decision here. But many Chrysler dealers are being regularly approached by other car brands and lured into switching brands. So neither dealership really needs to close. They simply could become another brand, and probably make more money since many brands such as Toyota, Hyundai and Subaru often sell much faster than many Chrysler products.

At any rate, I'm posting a new piece on this Chrysler dealership issue over at Wizbang Blue. I'd be happy to continue this discussion over there with anyone who wants to continue discussing this issue. I've offered enough opinions here at Kevin's post for today.

But the White House really has nothing to do with authorizing which dealers receive credit for inventory from Chrysler or not any more than the White House decides whether an individual receives a VISA or MASTERCARD.

So you say. But that is the $64,000 question. Is the White House involving itself in these decisions?

How can you be so sure that this kind of micromanagement isn't taking place?

1) The White House forced out GM CEO Rick Waggoner

2) Obama personally forced a deal on Chrysler.

3) Allegations come out that the White House threatened strong arm tactics against the hold out secured creditors. Reported threats included using the IRS and the White House Press Corps to destroy reputations. And Obama himself demonized those creditors.

So what exactly is Steve Rattner doing?

Finally, Paul says something I can believe

I just don't know what factors went into Chrysler's decision here

Links are for you losers that deal in facts. I don't need no steenkin' facts! Now to prepare my next 2000-word comment....

I do like Hooson's response on why the RJL dealerships are staying open:

"The RJL chain is large enough that it apparently has good cash flow in order to pay for the 90 and 120 day inventory offered on credit from Chrysler to keep all dealerships open,...."

apparently? Where is the link to show this? Just because they are large, they turn their inventory over quicker than one of those single dealerships? You chide Kevin for his post of not having sufficient proof, yet the only proof you offer in your comment is, well, nothing.

Paul Hooson's argument is all based on a bunch of assumptions that ipso facto prove his argument.

After arguing for several posts what factors Chrysler is using to base the closings on he finally concedes that he doesn't know what those factors are. But that didn't prevent him from making an educated guess as to what those factors are and then convincing himself that they are exactly the factors used to close the dealerships as proven by whether or not a dealership was closed.

The Paul Hooson methodology for closing dealerships is based upon cash flow/credit, those who have good cash flow stay open and those do not get closed.

Therefore it is obvious that RJL has good cash flow which is proven by the fact they are still open.

Furthermore, the dealerships that were closed must not have had good cash flow, which is proven by the fact that they were closed.

It's perfectly logical, A + 2 = C

Paul writes:

But the particular Chrysler dealership closings have no connection to the Obama Administration whatsoever

A quick google search shows numerous articles that indicate he the list of dealerships to be closed was dictated by President Obama's automotive task force. So clearly, the closings have a very clear connection with the Obama administration.

With some luck, we may have a congressional investigation:

U.S. Sens. Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond wrote a letter Friday to President Barack Obama's auto task force seeking answers to concerns raised by Chrysler and General Motors dealerships in Missouri that learned last week their contracts will be terminated.

Auto dealers statewide have expressed frustration to McCaskill and Bond about the lack of information they have received from Chrysler and GM, saying they didn't know the criteria used to make the contract termination decisions.

The two Missouri senators asked the task force for the criteria used to determine how many and which dealerships would be terminated, as well as the process for dealerships to appeal decisions.

We certainly may have law suits:

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

He added the government task force, which he criticized for having no members with retail experience was, in effect, attacking U.S. entrepreneurs.

"What is the next task force? Shoe stores? Pizzerias?" Bellavia said at an event in Manhattan to publicize the dealers' concerns ahead of a bankruptcy court hearing.

This is not the appearance of impropriety; this is corruption

Hoosan,
Where are your sources backing up your
allegations that bad credit, slow pay, are the
reasons for these dealerships being closed.
It's already been reported that many of the
ones chosen for closure are successful.
The Archer dealerships in the Houston area
have been very successful in selling autos
for years.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6424140.html
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html

Using mapping software, I illustrated these closings and openings.

The statistical odds of this occurring as the government -- I mean Chrysler -- claimed (based upon local market share, etc.) is about the same as Michael Moore winning a Mr. Olympia contest.

At any rate, I'm posting a new piece on this Chrysler dealership issue over at Wizbang Blue. I'd be happy to continue this discussion over there with anyone who wants to continue discussing this issue.

That's rich. Translation: "Crap! I'm getting my ass handed to me AGAIN! I quit but feel free to visit at the site where I (or Lee) have banned all contrary opinions and we can control the agenda."

Well, we could suppose that the highest performing dealerships in a given area were being closed in favor of lower or equally performing ones for the greater good, as some are wont to do. OR, we could be realistic.

If this were the first instance of fascism from the Obama regime, one might dismiss it (especially if one's family business were not a Chrysler or Dodge dealership being confiscated for the benefit of the regime's friends). It is not, not even close.

hooson - "but to the sales volume output of some dealerships that are in financial trouble that are getting big fleets of vehicles on credit and are slow to pay back as well expensive co-opt advertising cutbacks from Chrysler."

As someone has already done, and I repeat, where's the proof?

Where's the link proving the point you so feebly attempt to make?

Until then you're full of shit. Like that's something new.

Are you guys somehow getting even dumber? I didn't think it was possible, but then, there it is.

Please continue to expend your energy on things like this. Adults have work to do and it keeps you maniacs occupied.

Obama thinks he's Tony Soprano now- strong-arming legitimate, legal rights and claims from hedge funds... mafia-style, including union death-threats... so he could hand 55% of Chrysler over to the UAW, who donated $5M to his campaign.

If that's not stealing, I don't know what is... it doesn't matter how much you dislike hedge funds.

Now he's destroying the evil capitalists that didn't support his fraudulent, disingenuous campaign?

The White House says there's "no evidence"- note that Hitler was careful to only give verbal orders, too... and Obama's not new to this sort of thing.

Obama's completely out-of-control. But what did anyone expect with a neutered press, compliant congress, and cabinet full of sycophants?

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Pssst mantis... you do know the "analysis" provided in your link is complied only using data from Huffington Post's Fundrace database to arrive at his conclusion donations to a political party gives to the GOP at the tune of an 8-1 ratio.

You know that right?

Or have you made an "honest" mistake and not realized a similar search done via the Open Secrets website would arrive at a much different and possibly more realistic conclusion.

Using their data dealers only gave to the GOP at approximately a 3.5-1 rate.

That said stats are stats and numbers can often lie something mantis would probably never admit 'cause it's much easier to wade in here and tout a half-baked "analysis" linked to than actually think for a change.

Pssst mantis... you do know the "analysis" provided in your link is complied only using data from Huffington Post's Fundrace database to arrive at his conclusion donations to a political party gives to the GOP at the tune of an 8-1 ratio.

Yes. It says it right there in the post. Did you know that Fundrace simply pulls data from the FEC database, the same as OpenSecrets? Der dee der, ho hum. What other stupidity you got?

You know that right?

What is the purpose of asking the same question twice?

Or have you made an "honest" mistake and not realized a similar search done via the Open Secrets website would arrive at a much different and possibly more realistic conclusion.

So by pointing to one person's analysis, which is much more thorough, instead of another person's analysis, even though they both get their data from the same place, is dishonest? You're a fucking moron.

But let's consider the two analyses. Nate Silver only looks at contributions to presidential candidates, while OpenSecrets looks at partisan contributions. So of course the figures are going to be different. Furthermore, Silver searches a number of different possible job titles. OpenSecrets doesn't tell us much about their methodology, including that detail, but considering their dollar figures are much lower than Silver's I can only guess their research was rather limited. By the headline I assume they only searched for people who indicated their profession is "Car Dealer," and in fact their numbers match pretty nicely with Silver's search for the same job title. However every other job title he searched ("Auto Dealer" and "Automobile Dealer" both had higher numbers of contributors than "Car Dealer") showed a greater skew towards Republicans.

If you'd like another take, The Auto Prophet's analysis is in line with Silver's (and TAP uses OpenSecrets. Happy?). Hell, even WorldNetDaily finds similar numbers:

WND reviewed the list of 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership majority owners making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

That said stats are stats and numbers can often lie something mantis would probably never admit 'cause it's much easier to wade in here and tout a half-baked "analysis" linked to than actually think for a change.

Think? You don't know the meaning of the word.

"Furthermore, Silver searches a number of different possible job titles. OpenSecrets doesn't tell us much about their methodology,"

Unfortunately you have bought Silver's methodology that includes searches such as "occupations" like auto dealer, car dealer, automotive dealer, etc, with no definitive proof all results returned were what they appear to show. It's possible some names are in fact Joe Shit the Ragman employed at what is now obama/uaw motors.

As I said stats are stats and can be manipulated many ways, but the overriding issue is the lack of transparency that have some in Congress questioning the methodology behind the closings and leads to this type of speculation.

In the end mantis you do what you do best, shit on any and everything here with zero ability to look at both sides..

Unfortunately you have bought Silver's methodology that includes searches such as "occupations" like auto dealer, car dealer, automotive dealer, etc, with no definitive proof all results returned were what they appear to show.

And you point to a analysis that gets data from the exact same place and seems to have only searched for the occupation "car dealer," yet you find that more reliable. Again, you're are a fucking moron.

As I said stats are stats and can be manipulated many ways

True, and it works because idiots like you lap them up.

but the overriding issue is the lack of transparency that have some in Congress questioning the methodology behind the closings and leads to this type of speculation.

Some in Congress are concerned about being elected, so they are making noise because businesses in their states are being closed. Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill could give fuck-all about transparency. Besides, the overriding issue is not lack of transparency, it's idiotic bloggers believing retarded conspiracy theories because they don't have the brains or the honesty to exhibit some skepticism (to be fair, Malkin has been skeptical).

In the end mantis you do what you do best, shit on any and everything here with zero ability to look at both sides..

You are a funny guy. How's this for both sides?

A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

According to the sample, one major factor in determining whether a dealership was closed or not was the size of the dealership, measured by the number of product lines carried (the four lines are Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Dodge Truck). The average store that will be closed in the FOXNews.com sample carries 2.5 of those product lines whereas the average store that will stay open carries 3.64.

A Chrysler representative said part of the decision on consolidating dealerships was to reduce overlap and have the remaining dealers sell all three company brands.

"It makes sense to have all three brands under one roof," Chrysler spokeswoman Kathy Graham told FOXNews.com.

You only have the ability to look one way, friend, and it's straight up your lower intestine.

Seriously folks, can we actually have a debate without crass insults? I am all for some teasing, but lately words like idiot, moron etc get interjected as soon as people join the conversation, mostly because of a difference of opinion.
At least when you call someone and idiot, say "You are an idiot. Because...."

mantis, can you address the apparent benefit the hugely Democrat/Obama supporter megadealership RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Partnership appears to be receiving? While this is a separate situation to the accusation that Republican donors were targeted as victims, here is a stronger looking case that political supporters/lackeys are benefitting from the government intervention (kinda like Halliburton).

mantis, can you address the apparent benefit the hugely Democrat/Obama supporter megadealership RLJ-McLarty-Landers Automotive Partnership appears to be receiving?

What benefit? Not being closed? 75% of their dealerships weren't closed. Those that were, according to Chrysler, were closed for a variety of reasons, including poor performance, relying mostly on used car sales and sales of other types of cars, and to consolidate Chrysler brands with their own brands into single dealerships. I don't know how profitable the RLJ-McLarty-Landers dealerships are, or what their local situations are, but my guess is they didn't meet the criteria for closing. Does anyone actually have any evidence to the contrary?

here is a stronger looking case that political supporters/lackeys are benefitting from the government intervention (kinda like Halliburton).

Stronger case? Hardly. The government didn't decide which dealerships are closing, Chrysler did, and they have been wanting to consolidate their dealerships for years anyway.

This is all much ado about nothing, as far as I've seen, but it keeps the idiots busy, so I say keep digging!