Detroit Bureau on Twitter

Right Wing threatens to launch boycott of “Government Motors.”

Will the call to action gain traction - or backfire by sending import-oriented liberals to GM showrooms?

by on Jun.04, 2009

GM Boycott?We live, it’s often pointed out, in a polarized society, and few things, of late, have been more divisive than the debate over the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

When first proposed, late last year, surveys found a solid majority of Americans opposed to using billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the two financially floundering manufacturers.  And though that position is beginning to soften, there are still “certain parts of the country that do not like the concept,” concedes GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young.

In fact, among the hardcore right wing, that opposition appears to be increasing, for any number of reasons, not all of which is specifically due to the issues of saving the automakers.  Nonetheless, the bailout is triggering a backlash that has some arch-conservatives calling for an all-out boycott of the makers, and especially of “Government Motors,” as critics call it, which will emerge from bankruptcy with the Treasury Department holding more than 60% of the “new” GM’s stock.

Among those who have given voice to the idea of a boycott is the conservative host Hugh Hewitt, who made the bailout a pet peeve on his nationally-syndicated talk radio show, as well as in the blog he posts on the website,

Subscribe to“In the two days since the nationalization of GM was announced, the callers and e-mailers to my program have been 10 to 1 against the Obamaization of the American car business,” contended a June 3rd  posting, by Hewitt, who added that, “This is a decision that must be reversed. GM must be denationalized.”


“Individual Americans have a role to play,” argued Hewitt, echoing on-air comments. “They have to say no to GM products and services until such time as the denationalization occurs,” he wrote, concluding that, “every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise.”

While a boycott petition is circulating on the Internet, there have so far been few signing up. And whether any of those folks actually are in the car market is unknown.

While a boycott petition is circulating on the Internet, so far few are signing up. Whether any of those folks are in the car market is unknown.

Hewitt is by no means alone.  The boycott theme is quickly spreading across the conservative talk radio world, as well as on websites like the one operated by the rightist Washington Times, where comments like this one from “HanoverMan,” suggested there were at least some potential buyers ready to listen.

“Once the UAW becomes part of the ownership group, I will never buy another GM again – ever,” wrote HanoverMan, in response to a poll by the paper asking readers whether they think the ailing automaker  “will ever regain its footing as a national icon?”  The results, by the way, showed 84% of respondents answering “no.”

Will the critics make a boycott stick, potentially strangling the new GM right from its inception, thereby hurting U.S. taxpayers, or is is this tale, as William Shakespeare wrote, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

When asked if he fears the call for a boycott will cut into sales, GM’S CFO Young said, “I don’t think so,” adding that, “I believe the vast majority of Americans want us to succeed.  They want the hometown team to succeed.”

For his part, analyst Jim Hall, of 2953 Analytics, cautioned that, “You always worry when people are organized against you, but,” Hall stressed, “you’re talking about a small wing of a party that’s imploding.”

Indeed, there’ve been a number of efforts organized, over the years, against major corporations.  Only a few have had a measurable impact.  Others, such as the one built around claims that Proctor & Gamble’s logo signified devil worship, have made plenty of noise, but not much more than that.  At first, Ford Motor Co. appeared to buckle under when Rev. James Dobson, the controversial founder of Focus on the Family threatened a boycott because the automaker was advertising in various homosexual publications.  The company quickly reversed course and risked the wrath of ecumenicals when it renewed much of that advertising – but ultimately, the threat fizzled out.

And, added several observers, in today’s polarized environment, a call for a GM boycott by the right wing could actually win the automaker some sympathy in more liberal parts of the country – communities like San Francisco – which have typically had their own biases against domestic auto brands.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

47 Responses to “Right Wing threatens to launch boycott of “Government Motors.””

  1. Ken Zino says:

    Here’s the government’s position culled from hundreds of pages of legal documents: “Treasury has loaned, and proposes to loan, GM billions of dollars not just to spare the economy the consequences of GM’s liquidation, but also because the Government has concluded – as a result of an exhaustive analysis conducted by
    Treasury and the Auto Task Force – that a new, vastly improved, and competitive ‘New GM’ is an attainable prospect worthy of fervent pursuit, and warranting decisive action.”

  2. MF says:

    Please stick to the auto business and leave the editorial content somewhere else. “Far right wing” and “hardcore right” are subjective labels. I do not consider Hugh Hewitt to be “far right”. Conservative? Sure.

  3. John says:

    Psychologists use the term “enabler” to describe, for example, the guy who ivites his buddy to a bar to watch the big game, even though he knows his buddy has trouble with alcohol. Being an enabler is being part of the problem. I will not enable foolish behavior on the part of government. I will never by GM, Chrysler or Ford car again (Ford may be the worst of them all, trumpeting the fact that they have not accepted government money while zealously keeping that option open).

  4. Jilli says:

    What will the wingnuts want to boycot next – the medicare drug plan, or perhaps AIG, Lehman Brothers? They’re all acts of socialism instituted our government at the time – our republican government.

    Folks that buy into limbaugh-type tripe are so gullible that someone has to be embarrassed for them since they don’t have the intellectual capacity to do it themselves.

    Listening to limbaugh – who is nothing but a drug addled entertainer with anger issues and a fat paycheck – will surely give you brain damage – or if you’re listening, you’re probably already the lowest common denominator, so it’s doubtful they even realize it.

  5. Pete says:

    It could be worse… It could be left-wing wacks who whine about big evil corperations and their sending jobs over seas to the guy at Starbucks drive-through window from the seat of their Toyota.


  6. Jane says:

    It has nothing to do with left/right…The tax-taking parasites have to die in order to have a civil society.

  7. Gloria says:

    The little Liberal children love to think that they are entitled to other people’s lives and earnings. It has nothing to do with “Right Wing”.

  8. mey says:

    Way to support America, wingnuts, by… NOT buying American!! Why do wingnuts hate America??

  9. Dave says:

    I have been a GM supporter all my life but no longer. I know what the Government is capable of doing since I worked for them for over 20 yrs.
    This is not a “Right Wing” conspiracy. I saw the Soviet Union government made cars, you would not want to own one.

  10. Sally says:

    The wussy UAW taxtaker tapeworms can starve.

  11. Bob says:

    As a radical green anti-car activist who only rides a bicycle and refuses to own any car, I am thrilled to know that the American Right Wing has now joined our campaign against the company that made The Hummer.

    Here’s to crushing the corporations that destroy the planet!

    See y’all on the subway and in the bike lane.

  12. tdb says:

    MF, Ahem, want to read this again? Your politics betray you. My description of Hewitt was summed up in the following introductory line:
    “…Among those who have given voice to the idea of a boycott is the conservative host Hugh Hewitt, who made the bailout a pet peeve on his nationally-syndicated talk radio show, as well as in the blog he posts on the website,…”
    I don’t notice any specific descriptor about Mr. Hewitt other than “conservative,” which is on par with your own description.
    As to editorials and editorializing, I feel pretty satisfied that this story discussed issues of politics without taking specific sides, perhaps the reason why the comments that followed yours are all over the map in terms of their own reading of the story.
    When you take a shot, please make sure you’ve got the barrel pointing away from you.
    Other than that, we really do appreciate yours and everyone else’s feedback.
    Paul A. Eisenstein
    Bureau Chief,

  13. Too many cars are produced in America. No sane investor would have moved in, and the additionnal unemployment would have put the economy over the brink. The purpose of the Government taking over GM is to pick up the tab for the labor force, while it is retrained to produce something else. So let’s just pretend that GM will be revamped as a car producer. NOT buying the product will help and provide an excuse

    Pierre JC Allard

  14. jvill says:

    Let me get the wingnut timeline straight…

    Step 1: A major American icon is failing! Help her!

    Step 2: Contracts are sacred for AIG, but the car companies can break theirs if it’ll kick a union in the teeth. Take down the autos! To heck with Michigan! Liquidate! Liquidate!

    Step 3: Oh my gosh! 1000 dealerships have to close! That’s crazy! Ignore our previous plan to let the companies fail, thus closing ALL dealership, and get indignant with us over 1000 closings!

    Step 4: Boycott! So what if that hurts American dealerships… And American tax payers who own part of the company… And American small business owners that depend on the autos… And American workers… Boycott! We’ll show true patriotism for the American way by driving venerable American businesses into the ground! Don’t buy American!

    Coherence, I hardly knew ye…

  15. John E Stauffer says:

    First of all the federal government, and yes, it is run by a liberal administration, does NOT want to run GM, Chrysler, or any other U.S. corporation. Why? Nationalizing industries, as was practiced by the British labour party (and other European countries) after World War II has been proven to be a bankrupt policy (no pun intended), and it doesn’t address ANY of the administrations stated goals. Why is that? Because it severely limits the administration’s real and paramount objective, which is to provide access to health care and education for all Americans. Now, when it comes to health care, what they are proposing is in fact a degree of socialized medicine, and I won’t argue that subject here. Stepping in to save the auto industry (if it can be saved) makes their real objectives much harder. Is it worth saving? I don’t always buy the argument that a company is too big to fail, and that the government must step in. The less government intervention, often the better. However, if we applied a hard line to Chrysler back in 1980, and not guaranteed their loans, what would have happened? Think of the hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention benefits, that Chrysler supported for nearly 30 years. Chrysler paid it all back, and before it was due. These companies deserve a lifeline – a temporary lifeline. These are the companies that produced the Sherman tanks, and Liberator bombers that won the one war that really mattered, and allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. For all the conservatives who where gung-ho about invading Iraq…you know those M1/A1-Abrams tanks that made mince-meat of the Republican Guard? Best tanks in the world? Well that’s a Chrysler design. Look it up. They may end up failing, but that’s no reason NOT to try to do something.

  16. atarijpb says:

    I thought we were all Americans? Who in their right mind would want to see the country fail?

  17. brad says:

    The “Free Market” Republicans are hypocrites and the best example is Senator Shelby.

    In late 2008 Republican, Richard Shelby opposed a Federal government bridge loan for US-owned auto companies, saying: “We don’t need government – governmental subsidies for manufacturing in this country. It’s the French model, it’s the wrong road. We will pay for it. The average American taxpayer is going to pay dearly for this, if I’m not wrong.”

    However, foreign-owned auto manufacturers Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai received approximately $788 million in government subsidies in the cities of Vance, Lincoln, Huntsville, and Montgomery in Shelby’s home state of Alabama, according to analysis by Good Jobs First. Good Jobs First executive Director Greg LeRoy pointed out that “while proposed federal aid to the Big 3 would take the form of a loan, the vast majority of subsidies to foreign auto plants were taxpayer gifts such as property and sales tax exemptions, income tax credits, infrastructure aid, land discounts, and training grants.


  18. mtneagle says:

    Haven’t we already been boycotting GM? Why else would they be in bankruptcy? Simply put, we didn’t want their cars. I’d also be willing to bet that the majority of Right Wing Haters are driving foreign cars. Also, if you were to buy a car today would it be from GM? I doubt it!

  19. sduncan000 says:

    What’s with the diatribe against conservatives here?
    You folks have so many wrong notions. first of all to Mr. Hall in the article – this is a ‘conservative’ boycott, not a republican (a.k.a. the ‘imploding party’)
    John Stauffer: Yes, they DO want to run it. Per Mr. Obama himself – ‘we only want to have a say in the fundamental aspects of the business’ – Well, what other aspects of business are there?
    jvill – please join reality.
    atarijpb – Nobody in this country wants America to fail. Conservatives want SOCIALISM in this country to fail.
    - Steve

  20. SBH says:

    MF…. the only people who do not consider Hugh Hewitt to be “FAR RIGHT” are the far right themselves.

    I spent a couple years at a high level within an organization he works for. trust me, those people are nothing they preach, and frankly only interested in the almighty dollar. their moral platitudes and posturing are only pablum for the consumption of the gullible.

  21. John Martinson says:

    Oh….the crybaby conservatives are going to take all their crayons and go home….give me a break. Worse than whining kids.

  22. Tim Caton says:

    Hey Mr. Eisenstein…you need to re-read what you wrote. Check out the paragraph prior to your comments regarding Mr. Hewitt where you setup the theme of your article. You said Mr. Hewitt was “among those that had given voice to the idea” of an all-out boycott; an idea that has become popular with the hardcore right and the arch-conservatives. It’s called context. I’m afraid it is your politics that betray you.

  23. tdb says:

    Ahem, Mr. Caton,
    The context would stand no matter what my politics. The fact is, if you study the groups calling for the boycott, they are on the right, and to be more precise, in the segment of the political spectrum that would be described as hardcore or, if you prefer, arch-conservative. FYI, I find it strange that you would feel so offended to hear Hugh Hewitt described as a member of the right, a term he has personally never denied. I would, perhaps take offense at words like “fringe,” or perhaps even “extreme,” as those could be seen as expressing judgment… much like you would obviously be offended at terms like “fringe left,” “socialist” or other pejorative terms that are often used to dismiss people on the other end of the spectrum.
    My politics have nothing to do with the issue of this attempted boycott. The question is the source of the effort and, to a large degree, it is coming from those who are to the right of center, generally quite to the right. The validity of their goal I will leave to others to decide.
    Paul A. Eisenstein
    Bureau Chief,

  24. Melissa says:

    The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of taxpayer money is not going to go under good sides of the consumers.

  25. Paul Grenney says:

    Lost a customer when the US Government became an owner of General Motors: customer cancelled a Tahoe order and purchased a Nissan. Sad, because GM will need all the customers it can get to survive, and while I oppose Government intervention of GM and Chrysler, there is little common sense to support a boycott. Better to Vote your preference.

    America: a government to Serve the People

  26. Don Braeder says:

    I’m a recent convert to buying foreign. I drove Ford most all of my life. Still own a 2006 Mustang GT 4.6 and an old Escort. New additions include a 2009 Sienna and a 2010 Tundra Limited 4Dr. Why? Because I thought they were better. No boycott. Just comparisons. Most people will buy what they think gives the most bang for their buck. Boycotts imply bias-against. That’s why “Buy American” didn’t work. More people bought foreign brands because they were better quality, greater content and better value for the money.

  27. Pauli says:

    I don’t get it. It wouldn’t be a failure to force liberals to buy cars that they hate and which would be less safe on the road. The GM boycott sounds like a win-win to me.

  28. Molly says:

    So Finally where has the conclusion come to? GM is bankrupt, We are bankrupt and the average man is going nowhere in this struggle, I ask you guys today What did we gain out of this?

  29. Chucky says:

    I think people are missing the point. If a company, individual, or government does something you do not like you have the right to boycott their products. I personally boycott movies made by some actors because they do not have the same beliefs that I do. I don’t worry about the possibility that they not be able to finance a new swimming pool or a trip to Cannes. Also, it seems like South Africa was very unpopular a while back. Result: US companies and individuals boycotted South African products. I don’t think there were to many people concerned about the affect on the South African workers. Does it make any difference now that a boycott will affect U.S. workers. Hmmmm. Not in my book. We cannot call people that want to use the rights granted by the Constitution “Un-American” or “Un-Patriotic”. However, it is Un-American and Un-Patriotic to support the unconstitutional and illegal methods that the current administration has used in influencing the outcome of these bankruptcies. I would say that the administration pretty much blew the 5th amendment of the Constitution and bankruptcy laws dating back well over 100 years out of the water when they influenced the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings of both companies. So here is what I plan to do. I personally will not buy a GM or Chrysler product ever again. I will try and influence others to follow me. You want to call me Un-American that is your choice. I know different.

  30. American Citizen says:

    Have only owned GM in my 55 years, and am a GM dealer who is being destroyed. Have been an honest, tax-paying citizen. Family and I will NEVER buy GM again. They are going against every principle that this nation was founded on…breaking all laws and being completely arrogant and immoral. Will not fly my flag again, either. BOYCOTT GM!

  31. Mark says:

    Personally I didn’t hear anything about a boycott against GM. I have been a loyal GM customer since 1979. I currently own a Cadillac and a Chevrolet Silverado. I’ve owned my truck now for about 4 years and I like it but… I decided back when Obama fired the president of GM that I was never going to purchase another vehicle from GM as long as the Government has any vested interest in the company. This isn’t part of any boycott it’s just that I believe this isn’t how America is supposed to work.

  32. Ron says:

    I just purchased a new Ford because they did not take government money. Will never purchase GM.

  33. sailordave says:

    For the record, I’m registered as an Independent and I’m not buying a Government Motors vehicle. All vehicles I’ve ever owned were from General Motors. 78 Camaro, 84 Buick Skyhawk, 94 Chevy Cavalier, and my current 03 Chevy Malibu. Though my car is paid off, my next purchase will not be a GM vehicle. To Paul Eisenstein, your article is clearly one sided and shows your personal political views. Many corporations in the past have gone out of business and other companies have either increased business to take up the vacancy in the market or new companies started up to take their place. GM should have either filed for bankruptcy without the government throwing tax money at the company or they should have closed their doors and admit defeat. It’s odd that many liberals refused to purchase vehicles from American car companies when they were private companies but all of a sudden want these same governnment supported companies to succeed now that they are run by the federal government (socialist at best, communist at worse). If I ever buy a GM vehicle again it will not be any newer than 2009. I don’t want communism to succeed in my country which means I don’t support Government Motors. I want private companies to succeed or fail without federal tax money. A great many formerly great american motor companies once existed and failed without asking for a government handout of cash. What flag do you fly at your home? The stars and stripes or the hammer and sickle?

  34. NYIndep says:

    Independent new yorker who’s voted democrat in every one of my house races and who’ll vote for cuomo this upcoming election and I’m never buying GM and thinking about not buying Ford. Three reasons for this:

    1. Quality – Japanese cars are simply a better deal and if I want to spend the extra money or want higher quality I’ll go european.

    2. Staying power – How long will GM and Ford even last? They burned through our first loans and then needed bankruptcy and the second bailout. People who read the filing know that we’ve already excused 7+ billion for GM that they burned through before bankruptcy and their second bailout. Considering their poor quality and seemingly idiotic management I have no confidence that they’ll be around 5 years from now. Buying a car from a company that might not be around doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

    3. Politics – I hate bailouts. I hated the bank bailout and then the second bailout and all the other smaller ones that don’t make the paper. No company should be ‘too big’ to fail.

    Has any company ever said said, ‘this commodity/service is too important to the lives of Americans to try to raise our profit margins’?

    Additionally, what was even more worrisome was how bankruptcy law was turned on its head in the GM case with respect to secured creditors so that the administration could reward its political allies. This isn’t unique to this administration (why do you think the past one chose to help Goldman but let Bear Sterns go down?) but its an extremely disconcerting thing when a powerful group now has the government acting as a proxy. A big, powerful union scares me every bit the way a powerful corporation does. The far left wingers and right wingers can continue their idiotic name calling on this but there are real and disturbing problems in how GM was bailed out.

    I also question the analytical ability of Jim Hall. While he may believe the republican party is dying (something I find hard to believe considering we heard the exact same thing about democrats in 2004) this is primarily a conservative led boycott. If he was worth his salt as an analyst he would have looked at the latest polls from most major services and seen that conservatives are in fact increasing and I believe the latest news has them as the largest ideological demographic in the country.

  35. NYIndep says:

    The one thing I would say to Paul is that you’re ignoring the enormous number of libertarians who also have problems with GM and with bailouts. Contextualizing opponents as only arch conservatives and those on the ‘far right’ or even if you’d said ‘far left’ would still be creating a narrative where you’re identifying simply a fringe segment of the country calling for a boycott. That will inevitably contextualize the movement itself as a fringe movement. That does create a prejudicial tone when you could have chosen a more accurate and less polarizing term such as ‘free marketer’. Now certainly not all supporters of a boycott are strict free marketers but I don’t think you see many populists clamoring for the boycott so I think the free market tag is more apt.

  36. [...] In a not so surprising move to destroy any city related to auto manufacturing (can’t be that many left in USA anyways, right?) right-wing, ass-clowns are planning to ‘boycott’ General Motors and Chrysler as they try to emerge out of bankruptcy. Their reason, read for yourself. [...]

  37. Mark in NY says:

    I don’t care if the Gov’t backs either GM or Chrysler. I own both cars and will never buy either again. They screwed my family by NOT honoring our EXTENDED warranties that we paid for. So Just like when Kmart went bankrupt and screwed their investors so has these two car companies. I’ve talked to countless individuals who have experienced the same as I and the reason their businesses have failed is because THEY have put their customers LAST! I’ll be surpized if anyone buys their product. The reports on their quality and dependablitly shows they have screwed people long enough and it has finally caught up with them. Now they have added icing to that cake by further alienating their customer base by being on the take with the tax payer. So the CFO of GM can say all he wants about this being smoke and mirrors. You’ve screwed your customers more than most porn stars have screwed in movies in a life time.

  38. tdb says:

    Hi, Mark,
    I was rather surprised by your post, and for several reasons. You indicate that your warranties are not being honored, and if I read things right, you have experienced this problem with BOTH GM and Chrysler. That seems very odd, but please read this follow-up note through to the end. Both makers agreed, as part of the bankruptcy process to honor existing *regular* warranties, and the government even created a guarantee program that would have ensured GM and Chrysler warranties if either company failed.
    Now, you use the word “extended” warranties and say this is not being honored. Are you referring to separate warranties on multiple products that you have purchased to try to protect your vehicles AFTER the FACTORY warranties have expired?
    Sadly, these were likely sold to you by your independent local dealer(s) and were almost certainly written by separate companies, very likely not by GM or Chrysler. If they aren’t covering you, you have a beef with the dealer or those insurance companies, and I must note that over the years, extended warranty underwriters have had a lot of trouble with the law, though there are some very good ones, too.
    If you ARE having problems with independent insurers, you can try to contact the factory reps, and there’s usually a number in your owner’s manual(s), should the original dealer not help. You can also comment local or state insurance or consumer fraud departments.
    Holding the automaker responsible for an independent insurance company would be like demanding them to replace a tire you bought at an independent garage, however.
    If you’d like, please follow with more details. Perhaps there’s more to the story.
    Paul A. Eisenstein
    Bureau Chief,

  39. John Long Beach CA says:

    Not a right wing nut, but why should Americans buy a GM car??? I had Plymouth Breeze and that was a piece of garbage. Now your going to have the Union and government running GM. What’s going to change emissions from the government and cost of making the car from the union. Sounds like another piece of garbage. I would be a Toyota before a GM. They are made in Tennessee. So American workers and no stupid Unions.
    Unions are a disease, you should see what they are doing to california. My parents were postal union members. Why are federal employees union members or state employees union members??? They get everything free. Unions will be the death of America.

  40. Gil Escamilla says:

    Liberal or Conservative you can’t deny that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth when a failed company has to be supported by taxpayers. Then expects those same taxpayers to buy their crappy cars cause it’s the patriotic thing to do…I don’t buy it…and neither will I buy GM products and services. GM needs to reap what it sowed; its employees can look for work elsewhere in the many other companies that would fill the vacuum left by GM.

  41. Tom C says:

    Two words why everyone should boycott GM:
    Pontiac Aztec

  42. Kim G says:

    Perhaps all those anti-government types might want to disconnect from their city water supplies too? After all, we don’t want to support any government enterprise.

  43. David Fitzgeralds says:

    I have collected classic Chevy’s and GM’s and owned over 50 GM cars in my lifetime. Because of the goverment ballout, I will not perchase another GM vehicle or GM part. Or any goverment owned product.

  44. John C. Anderson says:

    First it’s important to remember that the government’s takeover of GM and Chrysler was NOT a bailout of those companies, it was a bailout of the UAW. GM & Chrysler had the option of the old fashion bankruptcy that would have allowed the court to rewrite contracts and agreements … including the labor agreements of the UAW.

    By pumping money into the companies and allowing for a “pre-packaged” bankruptcy, the union contracts remain intact. Yes, workers will are losing their jobs, and others now a part of “Obama Motors” takes a hit ….. The UAW take the smallest hit AND get a piece of the company compliments of us, the taxpayers.

    Let GM and Chrysler die! Then we vote the liberals out November 2010.

  45. Jason says:

    I just wanted to let you know that myself and my colleagues are highly disappointed about the latest report that despite Raser Technologies making a viable bid for Hummer, that General Motors is shutting down the brand. I was considering purchasing a Cadillac. I will never buy another GM vehicle … EVER. As a taxpayer this makes me really angry. GM had a viable offer from an American buyer with the experience and technology to make a green SUV. Instead, GM decided to stifle innovation and kill American jobs. Shame on General Motors.

  46. Jason says:

    I am highly disappointed about the latest report that despite Raser Technologies making a viable bid for Hummer, that General Motors is shutting down the brand. I was considering purchasing a Cadillac. I will never buy another GM vehicle … EVER. As a taxpayer this makes me really angry. GM had a viable offer from an American buyer with the experience and technology to make a green SUV. Instead, GM decided to stifle innovation and kill American jobs. Shame on General Motors.

  47. rhrealestate says:

    Let’s do the math out of 280,000 workers employed by GM only 77,000 are American workers the rest are employed elsewhere (mexico, canada ect.)
    GM is now mostly a foreign made auto, why should our tax money save that company, nmaybe if it only or mostly employed Americans….