It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chrysler Scandal of Epic Proportions…??!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:37 AM
Talk about preferencial treatment. This may be a scandal of epic proprotions, but sadly, it is way too common.

Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only “Democratic” dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary’s campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200 to Obama’s campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you?

Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a woman named Maureen White, who happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence, we’re certain.

Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happen in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri .It seems that Bill Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers.

Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed – not one- while all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus, by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn’t that amazing? Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story’s there, and it’s in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this isn’t being made up.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:46 AM
Well, you can't argue the point that the numbers seem fishy, but this is only one side of the data. If 90% of Chrysler dealers across the country made republican donations and 10% made democrat donations, then the chances of me snagging a democrat favoring dealership in any random sampling is pretty small.

Could it be just as likely that Chrystler dealers as a whole supported Republicans more often than not?

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:47 AM
This is definitely a good find! Thank you for sharing it with us...

Politicians in control always look out for themselves. We see it in all most all administrations... (Not just this one)

We the people need to take back control!

S & F for you!

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by rogerstigers

In defense of the OP, this story initially broke a few months ago. Only FOX reported on it, so of course it didn't make the news.
The one issue that the report mentioned (FOX) is that the majority of these dealerships were making money. They were in the black. So the justification of them closing was false.

It is things like this that we shouldn't forget, the MSM thinks we aren't smart enough to remember, but given their current state of decay, they should be history soon enough.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:19 AM
Missing from the data is any mention of the contribution history of the dealers who were *not* shut down. Big surprise. Anyone who knows anything about the car business knows car dealers are usually Republicans. Duh.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Double_Nought_Spy
Missing from the data is any mention of the contribution history of the dealers who were *not* shut down. Big surprise. Anyone who knows anything about the car business knows car dealers are usually Republicans. Duh.

So you do not find what the OP posted as a bit . . . off?

It is all just one big coincidence . . . right?

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by Double_Nought_Spy

Well, this is pretty much what I was getting at. A statistical anamoly can only be verified when looking at the whole sample of data. If I told you I paid 15,000 in taxes last year, that might seem like a lot unless I told you I got to keep 85,000.

new topics

top topics


log in