"Who do you think is the leading automaker in the industry today?"
"Do you think Ford is staying ahead or falling behind its competitors?"
"Do you like Bill Ford's hair up or down?"

...than tell management what they already knew. I mean, come on, the article's even headlined "How political pros retouched Ford's image" — shouldn't it have been titled something like "How Ford hired political pros rather than fixing their own problems?" The problem with consensus-building of solutions via survey is that it allows senior leaders to focus on the survey itself rather than coming up with and implementing the solutions necessary to get the company's problems solved? Shouldn't that have been the focus of the article, rather than the righties over at the News shifting the focus to Clinton attack-dog mode for election season? You know — like perhaps attacking the real sources of FoMoCo's problems — and the reason why a "180 in 180" got them back to where they started — the management of the company, perhaps? – Ray Wert

How political pros retouched Ford's image [Detroit News]

Related:
Dan Howes: "Top GOP Leaders To Big Three: Drop Dead"; Breaking! Ford's Way Forward 2.0 [internal]

Daniel Howes writing for The Detroit News sets the gold standard for automotive journalism. His news pieces are comprehensive, insightful, balanced and eloquent. Lately, Howes has eased-off the hard news and ramped-up his commentary. Specifically, he s written a series of columns analyzing Motown s woes, from GM s fall from grace to the region s faltering fortunes. While keeping one foot in objective journalism, Howes has gradually become the best (if not the only) cheerleader The Big Three have got. And now he wants a word with the President.

"Help us Mr. President" begins with a recap of the Commander-in-Chief s recent rebuff to Detroit s struggling automakers. Howes puts his quote marks around W s statement that Detroit needs to become more relevant and learn how to compete. And then the counter attack.

If only it were that simple, Mr. President. Yes, Detroit's automakers and their biggest union, the United Auto Workers, have been undermined by their manifold mistakes. They're also slaves to their obligations to hundreds of thousands of workers who expect pensions and health care in retirement — and are getting them.

If unintentional, Howes defense becomes a passive
having their cake and starving too statement: admitting Detroit s mistakes while painting its blundering protagonists as honorable victims. By adding the phrase and getting them to the legacy cost issue, Howes seems to be saying Sure they screwed-up, but at least these goombas are honoring their obligations. And then a threat.

I doubt you or any of your successors would want the alternative. That's why the drama playing out here right now — the restructuring of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the bankruptcy of Delphi Corp., the embrace of alternative engine and fuel technology — is so important to the industrial health of this country, even if the coastal elites you're so fond of are utterly indifferent to much of anything here in flyover country.

Strategically, it s a big mistake. At a key stroke, Howes has alienated readers considering his remarks from the right hand side of the political spectrum, where, lest we forget, the power currently resides. The flyover country comment is another misstep, indicating the presence of a large chip on the writer s shoulder. Luckily, Howes quickly and completely regains his rhetorical balance, emphasizing Detroit s contention that they aren t seeking a bailout.

What they want is an advocate whose sweeping concept of national security in a globalized world doesn't end with the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. It includes manufacturing, the indigenous auto industry and new fuel technology because a robust and independent industry can still be a bulwark even in the allegedly post-industrial 21st century.

Let me be clear: The smart heads in this town, at least the ones who don't live in the past or go to work each day at the UAW's Solidarity House headquarters, don't want a bailout from Washington because they know they won't get one. They also know too many people think they don't deserve one.

Again, it s a fair cop — even if Howes previous statement that GM makes more money in China than anywhere else in the world takes the sting out of the tale. As always, the devil s in the details. Which Howes fails to provide. All we get is this:

But when no less than the consul general of Japan admits in Friday's editions of The Detroit News that "Japan did intervene in foreign currency markets in the past for the sake of predictability" — well, that tells you everything you need to know.

Good luck explaining all that in a few graphs. Even so, it would behoove Mr. Howes to provide a more detailed analysis of this tilted playing field, and give us guidance how it might be leveled by the President, should he have the legal power to do so. Otherwise, the average reader will simply return to the Prez common sense connection between crap cars and failing automakers.

Clearly, that kind of thinking sticks in Howes craw. So much so the writer takes off on a major league digression, switching from offense to defense.

There are some fundamental truths about the Detroit-based industry you should be reminded of, too, even if you don't see them in the clips culled from the coastal papers, which generally have already declared Detroit dead and only Detroit doesn't know it.

First, Detroit does build "relevant" product, such as the white Ford F-250 you drive down in Crawford. Despite all the ballyhoo about Nissan's new Titan pickup, the Mississippi-made behemoth you touted on a visit down there continues to miss sales targets — so much so that Nissan cut production while Ford's F-Series trucks continue to sell near record levels.

Sounds like relevant product to me.

Second, one suspects that Mr. Howes realizes that Mr. Bush is smart enough to know the difference between a company that makes a relevant product and enough relevant products to stay in business.

As he heads for home, Howes asks Congress (not the President) to go easy on pension reform (to avoid depleting Detroit s cash hordes ), defends Detroit s gas-guzzlers with misleading moral relativism (CAF to CAF if you please), praises Motown for bothering to play hybrid catch-up and ethanol bingo, and claims Detroit was way ahead of the Prez end to oil addiction shtick. It reads pretty much like it sounds: an unconvincing, fragmented apologia.

Howes final plea to the President is both vague and uninspiring. Bush should be more willing to lend more moral support and a few well-considered helping hands. Maybe so. But by the same token, Howes should be more willing to lend us his encyclopedic knowledge, unimpeachable integrity and well-honed writing skills; to help us understand the need for federal assistance to the domestic automobile industry.

Help Us Mr. President [The Detroit News]

[Jalopnik s Between the Lines column parses the rhetoric of the automotive industry, and the media that covers it, from the point of view of that kid at the back of the class with ADD, a genius IQ and a thirst for mayhem.]

Related:
More Between the Lines Columns [internal]