The American Spectator

frost| 1.29.09 @ 6:55AM

Nothing to add, 'cept a heartfelt "Amen."

Robert Rosencrans| 1.29.09 @ 7:19AM

Having a hodgepodge of state laws controlling products like autos is the first step to changing the auto industry. Part of that change will be the loss of thousands of jobs in the states that sign onto this madness.

Car dealerships that may have been worth a million before Obama took office, are now worthless because the proverbial handwriting is on the bathroom wall. No one will will purchase those auto dealerships in California or Maryland because they are convinced they are leading the way to environmental Nirvana and no one can stop them. Like Al Gore, they have reached a state of enlightenment on the environment that can not be turned back.

The end game is that some auto dealers will have to pull out of those states and others that follow their acerbic lead.

Used car prices in those states will most likely go up, and the 40 MPG cars that are sold will most likely be sold in neighboring states or "Gasp" ordered at your local Wal-Mart.

For the few dealerships that remain open business will be brisk, but there will always be a steady turnover of used SUVs and the like.

The passage of the Executive Order allowing this will be remembered as a tipping point, that put the final nail in the U.S. automotive industry.

Ironically, one of the biggest groups to suffer will be Obama's allies in the United Auto Workers Union and it's affiliates.

Therefore, one can only conclude that if you didn't vote for Obama he will screw you, and if you did vote for Obama he will screw you. In short, he's a real political bastard.

Let's hope he fails.

cdc| 1.29.09 @ 7:38AM

Why should cities that do have the population densities of LA be forced to accept the same emissions standards as regions of the country that do not? What's wrong with states rights? What's wrong with capitalism? If the auto industry can't profitably sell cars in california, it shouldn't sell cars there.

Melvin| 1.29.09 @ 7:45AM

People wake the heck up, this isn't about cleaning up the air or using alternative energy to power our needs. It is about creating and generating new revenue streams for government. Additionally Liberals want to reduce the the number of motor vehicles on the highways and force Americans to take public transit, but the only catch to that is there in many areas there is no public transit whatsoever.
By the President deferring this to the States will only cause mass confusion, and instead of having a coherent national policy that industry can follow it will on create a tower of Babel with state legislatures acting like the titans of industry.

Becky| 1.29.09 @ 8:32AM

Its about control. Here is an example of what happens. Michigan is only one of two states that has their own Department of Environmental Quality. The state's DEQ requirements are more stringent than the federal EPA, so the Titabawassee River, a major Michigan waterway, which has needed dredging for over a decade, has been held up in court by environmentalists and by the DEQ for years. The level of dioxins is lower than fed standards, and would not be a problem in 48 other states, and maybe even New Jersey's would be ok. Dow Chemical has dumped waste in the Saginaw River for years, beginning over 100 years ago, and yes, they are much more cautious now, with multiple test wells, etc. By the way, this river runs through Bay City also, the place where the 92 year old vet died from the cold when the local city owned power company shut off his power) The dioxin issue has never been resolved. What I do know is that collected health statistics are inconclusive so far. I beleive it takes 300 semis to move what one cargo ship does, so dredging the river is important for economy. It almost doesn't matter now, this past summer was the smallest amount of ships to go up the river (one that I know of got stuck). This area is a heavy GM place. We have fewer autoworkers, Delphi workers make less, and when the area aging retirees die out, we will probably see another drop in the economy.

Michigan's economy has been in decline for years, it has not just been a recent trend. The auto manufacturing decline combined with a rabid DEQ and environmentalist group activism has many of us wondering not when, but if Michigan will return to significant economic activity. A lot of our productive and young educated have left the state.

Yet, it appears our voters, (or what is left of the population), insist on pursuing these types of policies. You would think the autoworkers would welcome this direction based on their past voting preferences. It is hard for me to feel outrage on their behalf, but I do for myself. These direct victims of government interference will get the focus, attention, more bailouts, and the secondary and down the line victims, us economic ripples, will get crumbs after those of us in business are trashed.

Mark| 1.29.09 @ 9:03AM

Why doesn't California do something for its own workforce and build the car "they" want themselves. Creates jobs, provides a good the state wishes, good for the environment. What's that? Oh yeah, no one will buy them to make the effort profitable long term.

JP| 1.29.09 @ 9:04AM

This executive order, when implemented, will most certainly be litigated in federal court. Californina and New York will essientially determine federal emmissions and CAFE standards for the other 48 states, and not the federal regulatory agencies. This is a clear violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Only Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

I think there are 2 reasons that Obama is allowing this. Both are political. This order is seen as victory by the Hard Left. For awhile he can get them off his back; he can always point to this executive order later if he gets into trouble with them. Secondly, he knows in the long run this order will not pass constitutional muster. But, it could take 2-4 years to finally get a ruling; it buys him time to formulate some policy that will not totally ruin the auto-industry. Once the litigation begins everything gets put on hold. Obama can play both sides while these regulations are tied up in court.

Curly Smith| 1.29.09 @ 9:11AM

Excellent! Step 3 of our Reconquista Plan is proceeding on schedule. Why fight to take what others will leave behind as they flee the State for more prosperous pastures?

Doctor Right| 1.29.09 @ 10:05AM

Unfortunately, the American people will need to experience the Liberal experiment first-hand before rejecting it completely, and one hopes, forever.

To Americans, "socialism" was always an abstraction. We knew there were countries that had "socialist" governments, but many ahd no idea what that meant. They would visit these places - France, Canada, etc - and since they seemed so nice and quaint, a negative impression of "socialism" never truly developed. In addition, many failed to understand the inevitable link between socialism and "communism". In fact, those who did, and sounded the wearning bells, were often ridiculed.

Ironically, the ridicule was often issued by radicals who came of age in the 50's, 60's and early 70's who systematically began to seize control of the state and federal bureacracies while they also consolidated power in the legislative branch of the Federal Government.

And here we are! These same radicals, who do not love this nation, who do not respect the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, who do not like capitalism and free markets because those are liberating concepts that turn people away from statism, and who have bitter contempt for "the people" they claim to represent, are now in charge.

Swell, huh?

It's not over, not by a long shot. And rather than being the "death of conservatism" that many on the left long for, I truly believe that the Obama administration will be the death of liberalism and socialism in America...finally, and completely.

Sometimes, no matter how bad the reviews are, you have to see a movie before you form your own opinion. The American people are not as stupid as liberals think they are. They're watching this "movie" closely, and in just 2 short weeks, they're already developing an opinion on how it's going to end. And, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out (Yes, I listen to Rush. ALL Conservatives need to listen to Rush), Obama is already in trouble. The "annointed one" is beginning to realize that Governance is far more difficult than campaigning.

2010 looms large. In the same way that we neutered Bill Clinton in '94, we need to crush the Democrats in 2010. As Rush says (there he is again!), for the sake of our country, Obama and his policies MUST fail. As socialism has ALWAYS failed, that's not really an issue. The issue will be seizing the opportunity presented by the failure of Obama's socialist policies in the minds of the voters.

I believe we're up to the task. And yesterday's vote on the "porkulus" package was very, very encouraging.

Buckle-up! It's going to be a rocky ride.

MM| 1.29.09 @ 10:08AM

Hmmm, Auto makers are located in Michigan. Michigan voted for Obama.
UAW voted for Obama.
Serves 'em right.

Doctor Right| 1.29.09 @ 10:18AM

I completely agree with the assessment of the UAW's support for Obama, and his victory in Michigan.

We are CONSTANTLY told by the class warriors that whenever a Conservative politican wins, it's because the voters "voted against their own class interests".

That is absolute B.S.! In fact, as we can clearly see here, it's completely the opposite. Those who work in manufacturing continually vote for a Party that supports radical environmental positions that will KILL their industries, and their jobs!

As Ann Coulter said of those in JOhn Murtha's distrct, who sent him back to Congress after he questioned their intelligence and called them "rednecks", "They're not racists - they're retards!". One is tempted to say to those in in the UAW who lose their jobs "Screw them!".

Unfortunately, the loss of these industries threatens the entire nation's economy. We Conservatives have done a poor of reaching these folks. They need to understand what Obama's plan will do to their jobs.

Yes, yes...Their is a distinction between how the rank-n-file votes, and how the Union Bosses spend union dollars. But clearly, a great many of the rank-n-file are buying the bosses' line of baloney.

Let's get to work!

cdc| 1.29.09 @ 10:44AM

This is the attitude that got the auto makers into trouble in the first place. Running to the government because consumers don't want to buy the product. If californians don't want to buy the product don't sell to them, of course some one else will meet the demand and make money.
The fastest way to change the politics of california would be to cut off the supply of new cars.
Constitutionality is another question, but i think CA is safe on that one.

Thomas| 1.29.09 @ 11:32AM

Let's deal with a bit of reality here. In the first place, Californians really don't care about air quality. Why, you ask? Because with the exception of the LA basin, most of the state has NO air pollution problem. Unless they ban automobile traffic completely in LA, they are always going to have air quality issues because they allowed too many people, and their attendant industries, to settle in an area that can not, naturally, support them.

So let's have a little talk about "local regulatory rights", here. Allowing local areas to set their own standards in a variety of areas is fine, because these are local issues and they do not impact people living outside those areas. But, vehicle emission standards is not one of these areas. A scenario: California requires that all vehicles operated within the state meet emission standards set by the state. This makes the vehicles more expensive to produce and, subsequently, more expensive to sell. Therefor, it is very likely that automakers would continue to make vehicle that did not meet California requirements for sale in other parts of the country. But, being the cereal state, it is conceivable that these vehicles would be allowed to operate in California. How do you move products into the state without trucks? How can someone drive from Oregon to San Francisco without either owning a California car or renting one? Now multiply this by 50 and see what kind of problems crop up. There are some serious questions regarding interstate commerce here and interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal government.

Now, back to reality. That the current administration would even say this indicates that that it is either incredibly naive [read stupid] or doesn't really mean what it says. We'll just have to wait and see.

cdc| 1.29.09 @ 11:57AM

Thomas- you make good points, but the primary cases on interstate commerce that relate to this topic have regarded aspects of limited state ineterest (mud flaps, rail gauges, train lengths). Pollution on the other hand is frequently considered to be of significant interest, especially when it's effects can vary so much by region.
Now, like it or not, LA and SF residents still count as citizens and are enititled to vote on regulations.
You say that local control of air qualityis fine, can the cities therefore set different requirment than the rest of the country?

L. Ross| 1.29.09 @ 1:25PM

I'm not an autoworker. Don't work in the industry. However, it seems to me that the Japanese and Korean and European companies would have to meet the same environmental regulations as the US companies. Admittedly, the US companies are on shakey ground, but they all are going to need to spend a lot of money to meet these regulations.

Also, while the suggested 40 MPG is a very challenging goal to reach, can anyone tell me exactly what is wrong with improving gas mileage in this country? I know that larger cars are safer in a crash than smaller cars, but airbags have helped out the smaller cars a lot, and if the roads were dominated with smaller cars, we'd all be on a level playing field.

Forgive me for asking the question, but why does every family need an SUV in this nation, anyway? How many do you ever see off-road. These behemoths block your forward vision when driving behind one, get about half the mileage of a sedan, can't fit in many garages, the list goes on and on. Just like rap music and hip-hop, I don't get it.

I don't want to see the US car manufacturers go down the tubes, but I also would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and getting higher mileage cars on the road is the simplest way to do that.

And please don't tell me you can't have performance with your high mileage. I had a 1987 Chevy turbo Sprint that would knock your socks off. It got 42 MPG combined. God, I miss that car. . .

danny| 1.29.09 @ 2:16PM

not really an authority on cars, but i don't recall a chevy turbo sprint. is there any way you can post a picture of that car?

Crusader| 1.29.09 @ 2:44PM

L. Ross, why does every family need an SUV? I dunno. But can I ask how many TVs your family owns? How about cell phones? Or clothes? How many pair of pants do you REALLY need? None of my business? Freedom to spend our own money how we want. Imagine that.

I don't take my truck off road, but it sure comes in handy when packing for long trips, or shopping, or toting around my fishing equipment.

Crusader| 1.29.09 @ 2:47PM

Danny, the Chevy Sprint Turbo was a little 3-door hatchback in the mold of a Chevette. Perfect car for tree-hugging granolas, haha!

Anthony| 1.29.09 @ 2:57PM

Even when leftists venture an attempt into paying lip service to federalism, ie supporting individual states in making choices for its citizens, instead of the one size fits all from Washington, they make a gross mockery of the concept. Allowing states to set emissions and fuel standards is the 21st centurys version of the tower of Babel. No industry can operate in such confusion. Let's go back to the Articles of Confederation while we're at it and allow states to print their own money. Hell, California could use some funny money to balance its $30 B bacchanal. Maybe we can have our own conservative paradise afterall!!And Obama thinks he can grant this power to some states but not all? Wow! What ego; what an arrogant disregard for the Constitution. Is that what Harvard Law School teaches, or does this come out of Obama's primer, Rules for Radicals?

bobmontgomery| 1.29.09 @ 3:46PM

Is it possible that lawmakers, actors, politicians, EPA administrators, Nobel prize-winners ...SCIENTISTS...have advertently or inadvertently confused the public with this carbon thing? i.e., do people believe that carbon dioxide is carbon MONOXIDE!?

Thom| 1.29.09 @ 4:19PM

L. Ross said, "Forgive me for asking the question, but why does every family need an SUV in this nation, anyway?" "I had a 1987 Chevy turbo Sprint that would knock your socks off. It got 42 MPG combined"

Good question but tell me what can you tow with a Prius or the equivalent of your Chevy Chevette? Can it carry 5 or more adults with a weekend/weeks worth of stuff to support what it can tow and stop with any of the following, a pair of jet skies? a four wheeler? a 20 foot boat/sailboat? a 2000 lb popup trailer? a 5000 lb camper? a 16,000 lb Air Stream? The answer is no. The problems isn’t that every family needs a SUV or Pickup Truck but that most families have to make a choice between one vehicle type or the other each having completely different utility values. Only the relatively wealthy can afford to have specialized vehicles to support their wants and needs. Al Gore and John Kerry types fit that mold. Back when Americans owned 2-4 quarter horses/ox/mules, a buggy, a wagon they had flexibility you can’t get with a mechanical device like a vehicle. If you want to do more with your vehicle than just drive back and forth to work or go out on a date, these 35-40 mpg things aren’t going to meet that need (or want). My 20 year old car gets near 40 mpg on the road and has a life time average of 31 mpg. It is a lot larger than your Chevette type vehicle and does more but in no way can it do any of the things I listed above. That’s why Americans families own Mini Vans and SUVs. They do different things efficiently. Put a 5000 lb trailer or boat behind your front wheel drive mini-van and find out what dangerous is trying to stop one. People want utility out of what is more often than not the only vehicle they can own.

danny| 1.29.09 @ 4:20PM

crusader, thanks for the info. never been a tree hugger. probably why that one got by me. googled it and sure nuff it did exist.

litvi| 1.29.09 @ 5:05PM

Thom - more American families drive SUVs because of marketing than utility. By using "light truck" as a category, the Big 3 were able to sell way more vehicles than they could if the majority of their fleet had to meet CAFE standards. Light trucks are an exception to the standards, so shifting the sedans/"light truck" balance was the only way to sell enough cars to survive while meeting ever-tighter regulations. As Peters pointed out recently, the PT Cruiser is not a sedan, it's a "light truck." Even Toyota's Scion xBs (the little boxes) are "light trucks" (at least they were at the time I owned one).
You can by a Ford in any color you like, as long as it's black. And you can buy a GM in any model you like, as long as it's a light truck.

L. Ross| 1.29.09 @ 5:22PM

Guys and gals.

Regarding my post about "what's wrong with gettin 40 MPG" above.

Of course there are legitmate reasons to have a large vehicle with a big motor. And I will grant you that perhaps 20% of the people who are driving big SUVs need all that capacity. But, I assure you that 80% do not.

Incidentally, I currently own a Chevy Colorado 4 door with a 4 cylinder engine. It gets about 23 combined, and 27 highway. It tows my ski boat, (barely but it does) and does everything I need a truck/car for. Gets decent mileage to boot.

I've owned full size pickups in the past, and they are nice on rare occasions in my life. Like taking a big load of junk to the dump. But I've got a 24 foot flatbed that my little Colorado tows that will haul all the trash I need, and I still get about 23 mpg minimum.

Now if VW would just built another diesel pickup that gets 45 MPG, I'd be cooking. . .

2 Guns| 1.29.09 @ 5:43PM

The reason SUV's and Pickups sold so well, is not marketing...It's what the people wanted to buy.
Don't forget, that CAFE caused the demise of the "Full" size car (remember those?) Americans have always wanted and driven big cars. Once they were gone, they went to the so called light trucks (SUV's).

But just because some can get by with less, (I personally ride a '01 HD and get 45mpg, don't own a car since I live in Phoenix) doesn't mean that you can decide for others what they should be buying and driving. Last I looked, I thought this was a free country.

The big three and their advertising agencies can't make anyone buy anything that they don't really want.

Thom| 1.29.09 @ 6:01PM

Litvi, What is your point? Light trucks do have to meet CAFE standards established for them. If light trucks could be made to get the same mpg as car/min vans do, do you think they would not have made them by now? No one is marketing SUV/Pickup trucks on the basis that they get worse MPG than cars/vans with the same engines that I remember? Seems to me there might be a little bit more at work here than Marketing. It can’t be too effective since neither you nor I own one. I own a house which means LUVs become more important in one’s life if you intent to maintain it. My friends V6 Honda Van gets 29 mpg on the road but the same V6 in a Honda Ridgeline gets about 21 with a tail wind. The vehicles weight the same. Why the difference and why is that important to some? A Honda CRV 2WD SUV gets 29 on the road and the 4WD gets 28. The Civic with the same class of engine gets a lot better. Why? Ford used to make an F100 V6 with a three speed and it got 26 mpg way before any of this became important. Why is it not produced now? Probably had something to do with not having the power to tow anything and breaking the springs under the weight of a load of fire wood equal to its bed capacity. These things get different mpg with the same engines and hp because they are designed to do different things that involve more or less use of HP and weight. Comparing the Ridgeline to a CRV is an apple to orange comparison but both are light trucks.

L. Ross, can you prove your figures? "And I will grant you that perhaps 20% of the people who are driving big SUVs need all that capacity. But, I assure you that 80% do not." I'm the only one at my hunt club that does not own a pickup truck or SUV. They all go off road and in the woods for 6-8 weeks a year while my car sits back at the club. The largest single purchaser of light trucks, full size pickup trucks and SUVs is government. They use them exactly the same way private citizens do most of the time.

You are both making the case that some guiding force needs to decide what people can or can not buy based on your assumptions of need. I think that is truly dangerous thinking.

Curly Smith| 1.29.09 @ 6:32PM

Litvi - vast hordes buy SUVs not because of marketing but because they don't feel that the CAFE standard meeting mini-cars are safe for their families. Crash tests back up their thinking. I know it's odd that some people just won't comply with Congressionally mandated suicide. And, you'll note, that you never see the Congress Critters in the cars we're supposed to drive unless it's some publicity stunt to embarrass the automakers.

sarah lee| 1.29.09 @ 6:53PM

The country needs 1 National emissions standard.
http://everythingcars.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/national-auto-…ns-rule-needed/

Jim Turner| 1.29.09 @ 8:32PM

I have a better idea for the auto companies - just refuse to sell cars in California!

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.30.09 @ 6:12AM

“The Obama administration has apparently decided to slam shut -- and nail down -- the coffin lid on the U.S. auto industry.” (Boo)

The Obama administration has apparently decided to slam shut -- and nail down -- the coffin lid on union influence. (Yea)

The Obama administration has apparently decided to slam shut -- and nail down -- the coffin lid on the Democratic majorities in the various branches of government. (Yea)

The Republicans will be swept into office because the Obama administration has apparently decided to slam shut -- and nail down -- the coffin lid on Democracy. (sadly, also Boo)

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 1.31.09 @ 11:15PM

Why doesn't California do something for its own workforce and build the car "they" want themselves.

Probably because the price tag would be so high that only rich people could afford the damned thing.

jhkjh| 11.19.09 @ 10:12PM

MKV Converter,
Convert MKV File

easily| 4.5.10 @ 12:03AM

Blu ray Ripper Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on Mac OS X.