I'm a bit surprised that none of the RedState wits have failed to notice the hopefully unintended connection between the Chrysler bailout and the President's leadership style...
A fiat is an arbitrary decree made by someone with ultimate authority (and no accountability).
I've been laughing on several levels at the feds' combination of Chrysler and Fiat as the means to rescue the company, but it was a masterstroke to find a way to tie this altogether linguistically. I can imagine the brainstorming sessions at the White House, where some 3rd level aide mistakes Obama's question "Why shouldn't we just do this with a fiat?" and finding out the next day that the aide has arranged merger talks with an Italian automaker....
Have they not been paying attention? The merger between Chrysler and Daimler (who build better cars than Fiat, for sure) was an unmitigated disaster.
How then can merging two anemic and struggling companies (Chrysler and Fiat) possibly result in something stronger? The lame excuse that Fiat knows how to build smaller cars is just so bad it deserves no comment.
Had they really wanted to fix Chrysler, Cerebrus should never have hired Mr. Nardelli. They would have instead given control of the company to members of the team that conceived the Prowler and Challenger and told them to make an economical car--and it would already have been making the auto show circuit and creating buzz.
Putting Fiat and Chrysler together will be entertaining fodder for the business pages, but it will be an ultimate disaster.