Former Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli has performed a curt about face on his comments about the Obama Administration's handling of the auto bailout. The Detroit News reports that Nardelli said that he believes the administration made the correct decision for Chrysler in an email to the publication. Nardelli didn't go so far as to deny his earlier statements, but said that he understood why the government chose the path it took in the situation. He continued on to say that Chrysler was very appreciative of the government's understanding and assistance.

That's a starkly different tone from last week, when Nardelli was quoted as saying that if Cerberus had been given the same deal that the Obama Administration gave Fiat, Chrysler would still be doing as well as it is now. The former CEO went on to say that the automaker's current revival was thanks solely to moves that Cerberus put in place before bankruptcy.

Apparently Nardelli raised the wrong eyebrows with that gem.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 42 Comments
      mahalo5000
      • 3 Years Ago
      Cerberus is has one objective....to make money. They knew nothing about cars and cared even less. The only ting I remember Nardelli getting involved in....from a product standpoint....was agreeing on the need to improve Chrysler's terrible interiors. That's it. The Germans took a rising Chrysler, took its cash, and drove it into the ground. Cerberus was looking to make a quick buck on the fast turnaround of a distressed property......but didn't see the meltdown of 2008 coming. As far as I can tell, Chrysler was lucky to get a bailout and even luckier to get a dynamo like Marchionne at the helm.
        whofan
        • 3 Years Ago
        @mahalo5000
        What if Bob Lutz was but in charge of a rising Chrysler? I wish Iococca would have put Lutz at the helm. I thought the maker of Mercedes Benz would have made Chrysler a juggernaught. What a clumsey company Diamler is. BMW has my respect if I had to drive Germany`s best.
        ExoPlanet
        • 3 Years Ago
        @mahalo5000
        Yep, pretty much sums it up. They thought, install some super star performers (Jim Press, Debra Wahl Meyer from Toyota, Nardelli and a few others). Improve the vehicles (when they needed to be re-done), trim some fat and rake in the profits. First thing they learned was Press and Meyer were only labeled as "good" because Toyota had been on a quality streak. Neither had been through a turn around with limited budgets etc and they were both eventually let go (Meyer under Cerberus and Press under Fiat). They DID invest something like 700 million in the cars but they forgot one large thing, and that was to actually tell people about it. Didnt matter though, it wasn't enough for anyone to notice apparently.
      Robert Kyle
      • 3 Years Ago
      Nardelli was thrown out of Home Despot, and so he was hired to try to run Chrysler? And then he and Cerberus runs it into the ground and now he has sour grapes? This guys is classic CEO hubris.
      Soccer Mom
      • 3 Years Ago
      I wonder what those moves that Cerberus put in place before bankruptcy were. Perhaps, depriving company of new products and draining its cash pools helped securing the need for bail-outs.
      Bluegoose
      • 3 Years Ago
      SHUT UP!!!! He looks even weaker now that he has retracted the comments.
        sirjaysmith
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bluegoose
        shut up about sums it up, the guy simply needs to stop talking.
      ExoPlanet
      • 3 Years Ago
      Anyone else stop and notice that Mulally is the only one left after all that crap went down back then? Nardelli, Wagner, Getelfinger all gone...and thank god.
      MyerShift
      • 3 Years Ago
      Imbecile. This while mess would have been avoided if Iacocca had selected Lutz instead of Eaton as his successor!
      nsxrules
      • 3 Years Ago
      Looks like someone in the Obama adminstration threatened him and made him backpedal. Sadly he was right at first.
        whofan
        • 3 Years Ago
        @nsxrules
        If Cerberus didn`t (as Nardelli said) loose Chrysler. We all would have lost Chrysler. Cerberus didn`t have the guts to invest in Chrysler nor did they have the guts to strip and flip Chrysler as they originally planned. After Diamler got done Chrysler it look like a turkey carcus after the meal.
        Deb
        • 3 Years Ago
        @nsxrules
        Totally right the first time....I won't be buying another Chrysler product although I'm happy with the one I have now. I will not give my money to a company that the government had to bail out twice in my lifetime. Won't buy a GM either.
          Frank
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Deb
          Chrysler received no taxpayer money in 1980. They did it with private loans that were guaranteed by the government. Then they paid them back to the private banks they got them from early and with interest. It didn't cost the taxpayers a dime.
          desinerd1
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Deb
          At least you can make that decision. When Cheney gave my tax money to Haliburton, I wasn't give that choice. Oh, and that money was much more than cost of a car.
          nsxrules
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Deb
          desinerd1, Haliburton has never gotten a bailout. And why don't you complain that they are now getting money from Obama and Biden?
          MAX
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Deb
          All carmakers are subsidized by the government one way or another, see what's happening in Japan right now. Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW all took TARP money, even Harley davidson took TARP money. You'll have to ride a bicycle to escape "government motors". Ford stirred this crap up again because if you look at last month's sales figures, GM and Mopar are kicking Ford's ass because they have better cars and especially trucks and suv's. Not taking the bailout is all Ford has to brag about, their vehicles are failing in the marketplace. So go ahead and drive a DOHC V6 truck with 2 turbos instead of the proven Multi displacement 5.7L V8's Gm and Chrysler have. Drive a front wheel drive Volvo platform Taurus instead of the rear wheel drive Mercedes based Charger/300 with their superior 8 speed automatics. Drive a Explorer, Highlander or Pilot crossover based on minivans instead the extraordinary new Grand Cherokee. Cut your nose off to spite your face for political "truthiness" (focus group tested BS to help Wall Street) pushed by billionaires on Faux News and that hillbilly heroin addict Rush Limbaugh.
        desinerd1
        • 3 Years Ago
        @nsxrules
        you mean like Michael Steel had to withdraw his comments about Rush Limbah
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          [blocked]
          MAX
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          Why shouldn't these corporations report to Congress? Oh i forgot they already own Congress.
      nedly
      • 3 Years Ago
      Of course he did, Obama's Goon's got to him.
        MAX
        • 3 Years Ago
        @nedly
        Do you have proof or are you lying just to advance an agenda?
      Georgie Porgie
      • 3 Years Ago
      Heh Capitalism = privatize the profits, socialize the risk... And this turd has the nerve to criticize after benefiting from a bailout funded by taxpayers. These criminal CEO's should be required to give up their pensions before they receive any more bailouts. Or at least return jobs back to north america.
        desinerd1
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Georgie Porgie
        There should be a cap on the pay of CEOs and other executives of any publicly traded company. I think $500000 is enough.
          nsxrules
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          Only small minded people think there should be a "limit" on what people can earn.
          kevsflanagan
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          You'll have people complain about socialism and this that and how they have to pay to get the talent. To me I'd much prefer a CEO that loves the company he's working for than a guy that is working there just because they offered him/her the most money.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          [blocked]
      whofan
      • 3 Years Ago
      The way I see it, at the onset of WWII the government ordered these industrys to build a military machine capible of winning the war. As a matter of national defense and the duty served by our industry when called opon we do owe something. We should take care of these assets we have left. I`m not defending bad management. I`m saying we are free today because we out produced the rest of the world during a world war that could have went the other way. We even sent equipment to the Russia during the war. I think our Auto industry is important and I`m for one greatfull we still have it. Who complained about bailing out the banks?
        nsxrules
        • 3 Years Ago
        @whofan
        Everyone complained about bailing out the banks, and they were needed more than the auto manufacturers.
          whofan
          • 3 Years Ago
          @nsxrules
          I think they`re both important. I hear alot more guff about helping out the auto industry. So far its proving to have been the right thing to do. Back in 1980, backing Chrysler was the right thing to do.
          KDAWG
          • 3 Years Ago
          @nsxrules
          @Ladson Yeah deregulation is totally the republican's fault, oh wait Clinton started the deregulation of the banks. Obama is just as much in the Corporations pocket as anyone else, the CEO of GE sits next to the first lady at all the press conferences. Truth is all politicians are greedy scumbags who want the same thing, they just call themselves something different and fight over trivial matters.
          Ladson
          • 3 Years Ago
          @nsxrules
          It was painful but never the less important to the economy to bail both out; however, the banks were able to mess up our economy because the Republicans still live the lie that greed is good and doesn't need to be regulated. If you continue to trust greedy CEOs, Republicans, and the Koch brothers, you must accept the results that your middle-class life style will be destroyed and your country will become another Mexico with only rich people and peons.
      Bubba
      • 3 Years Ago
      The only move the Obama administration made that was a positive, was the assistance they gave to GM and Chrysler. A nation cannot remain a viable world power without a manufacturing base, and GM, Ford and Chrysler have supplied that base when required. Without that ability to mass-manufacture vehicles, tanks, etc during a change to war-production when required, who could we turn to - China, Russia, or others? Remember that the M60 and M1 battle tanks were developed and in the case of the M60, manufactured by Chrysler before they were forced to sell off their defense division by the federal government. Chrysler has produced some of the best cars throughout the years and were always known for their engineering expertise. Nardelli and Cerberus followed in the footsteps of Daimler and raped Chrysler, stealing Chrysler's money while witholding resources. The loss of neither to America's auto industry is to be mourned.
      john m
      • 3 Years Ago
      HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! What a simpleton!
    • Load More Comments