Poor Oldsmobile. During the 1980s it went from volume champion to being essentially the Cutlass Division of GM, thus finishing the decade in a real bind. What went wrong? Was it the loss of divisional independence caused by the newly formed B-O-C Group? The omnipresence of front-wheel drive? Increased, and increasingly intense, competition? In any case, only one thing is certain: In the late summer of 1985, the last medium-priced, B-body Delta 88s came off the line. Perhaps taking with it the bulk of Oldsmobile’s upper-middle class clientele.
The first newly downsized full-size Oldsmobiles–including the last of the “big” Delta 88s and equally trimmer Ninety-Eights–debuted in 1977. The zaftig 1971-76 gunboats were now a thing of the past. Sales of their attractive, crisply styled ‘sheer look’ replacements took off. In 1977, Oldsmobile set a production record, albeit on the strength of Cutlasses. But the big cars did very well too.
Despite being much smaller than the ’76s, the ’77 Royales had more interior room and trunk space. One shocking development was that the standard engine was not a V8. A 231 cu in V6 came standard, but 260, 300 and 400 CID V8s were available. And popular. Also available was a 5.7-liter V8 Diesel.
By 1984, the 88 hadn’t changed much, save for new, blockier rooflines and more aerodynamic front ends introduced for 1980. Despite the smoother styling, it was clearly an Oldsmobile. Nice, but not too nice, lest your neighbors get the wrong impression…
The 1985 lineup was a little odd. The all-new, front-wheel drive Ninety-Eights were smaller outside than the bread-and-butter 88s. While they were indeed very luxurious, and more space-and fuel-efficient than the ’84 Ninety-Eights and ’85 88s, they were nonetheless perceived as less car for more money.
Although the new ’85 FWD Ninety-Eight outsold the 1984 model (sales more than doubled, in fact), I would not be surprised if many traditional Ninety-Eight customers opted instead for the top-of-the line Delta 88 Luxury Sedan that featured the previous year’s Ninety-Eight interior. After all, there were plenty of Oldsmobile buyers who still subscribed to the 1950s-1960s idea that bigger is better. For a while.
So was there a Brougham version? But of course! Although the new 1985-only Luxury Sedan was now top dog, the Royale Brougham was not lacking for power options, chrome, and velour by the square foot. The Luxury Sedan, along with all Broughams, inherited the grille form the 1980 Ninety-Eight. Even the standard Royale got the wide chrome rocker moldings, belt reveal and wheel opening moldings. The Royale coupes got opera lamps. The two-color taillamps carried over from the 1984 version.
Back in April 2012 I visited my aunt and uncle in Iowa City, to go to dinner and check out the first Sycamore cruise-in of the year. Dave and I stopped at the local Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer to check out the Challengers. Dave actually worked there in the mid-’80s, but like me, car sales were not for him (during his time there he sold one car, an Omni. Yep.) and he moved on to greener pastures.
As we arrived, I noticed a B-body Olds among the new Rams and 300s. Upon closer inspection, I realized this car was a gem: no rust, nice paint and apparently original. In winter, Iowa City does not use salt but sand on its roads, which may account for the fine condition of this Royale.
Keep in mind this is the standard Royale, and not a Brougham or LS. But it was still pretty nice, and possibly better for those who aren’t quite as infatuated with Broughamy touches as your author. The blue interior on our featured coupewas an especially nice complement to the navy blue paint and landau top. And it looked even better with its optional chrome Super Stock wheels and dual chrome pipes–much nicer looking than the rattly wire wheel covers that probably 98.5% of these cars came with.
These were great cars, tough and reliable. Oldsmobile, you left us too soon.
The twentieth class reunion ad is great reminder of how things have declined in little ways. Notice the elegant surroundings and proper dress of couples. Expecting and the Delta 88 confirming that people were on their way in a life of humble but satisfying achievement.
Think then of your twentieth and the back room in a bar where it was at and the bulk of the fat slob attendees being singles desperate for a hookup with the girl /boy from long ago. As the booze takes hold, you get to hear the modern misery from the constant micro cuts of modern life.
I am not saying that people who came of age under Eisenhower/Kennedy didn’t have there own troubles. There were however reminders everywhere of how thigs should be. The Delta 88 played it’s part in that, even if by the 80s it was obvious that the idyllic had a target on his back.
GM solidified it by saying “It’s not your uncool square father’s Oldsmobile (snort)”. They should have been pushing handing your car down, like VW and Chevy and Subaru have done.
The self loathing came on pretty fast after people like Ribicki, Estes, and McDonald retired to have their places taken by the Opel mafia. Yet the retirees somehow get the blame.
I don’t think there is enough ink/pixels in the world to cover all the things that GM exec did wrong in the 80s and 90s and still to this day. A perfect, recent example is Cadillac’s pursuit of AMG/M division, while Chrysler made a big-ass comfy car beloved by rappers and suburbanites who aspire to be cool. GM seemed to think all their brand equity was gone well before it was. Not my father’s Oldsmobile? My father was a badass who had a big, plush Olds. I should be so lucky to have a car like his.
I cut a lot more slack to the people I named above, who started on the line, picked out based on their potential got sent to Kettering on GM’s dime. Then they were mentored and promoted over many others by true giants through the many ranks at GM. As top level executives they had challenges not just the usual dickering with suppliers and the UAW. Instead they had Japanese building factories, the government telling them to find a new bread and butter because the old was no longer sellable, and a new type of youth. Not one who just switched to Dodge because his Chevy had a cranky carb, but hated you because you were part of the institution he wanted overturned.
With all that going on, I think that late career Delta 88 ad shows they still had their head on straight to the end. Not an easy task.
“Chrysler made a big-ass comfy car beloved by rappers and suburbanites who aspire to be cool.”
Heard of an Escalade? Familiar with that?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay more cred and desirability/aspiration than a 300….
I’ll refer to the old ” a 300 only looks like a Bentley….” joke….
I’m not sure you can use the portrayal of a “way of life” from an advertisement trying to sell a product as a very accurate representation of reality. Assuming the class reunion is around 1984, that would mean the attendees had since graduation from high school or college 20 years before lived through the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK (and near successful attempts on RR and PJP), had to face the possibility of being drafted and sent to Vietnam, going through two oil crises and consequent stagflation and industrial collapse of the 1970s-early 80s, the Watergate scandal and loss of respect for our political system, the civil rights, feminism, and gay rights movements that created great social turmoil including race riots, white flight, rising divorce rates and declining fertility rates, and the immigration gates were opened and a country that had been approximately 90% white and 10% black since the Civil War saw huge increases in people from vastly different cultures and traditions that upset traditional and even post-civil rights race relations. Meanwhile cars got uglier, slower, less well built (Japanese excepted), and more expensive even as they got cleaner, safer, and more fuel efficient and slightly more rust resistant, although thanks to imports there were now many more choices in terms of size, body type, build quality, technology, and status. Thus I am not sure I would call the era idyllic.
A big part of life by people living a properly after JFK’s assassination lead to what it lead to, was cocooning, so at least in the individual family, there is hope for riding it out. I wholeheartedly recommend cocooning in todays world. With my own daughter, after finding even the Christian, private schools subpar she went to boarding school at her mother’s alma mater and we, well mostly my daughter found a university in Canada that still offered a classical education where the professors wore cap and gowns to class and students discussed coursework and life over glasses of cherry. How is she supposed to get a job with that you might ask? MRS. degrees need to come back, don’t they.
As far as ads being idealized, it beats having your stomach turned by them.
Given how many young women are now claiming to be anything except heterosexual female, as transgenderism, bi-sexuality, and homosexuality become much more “cool”, and that the remaining females who claim to still like men find 80% of men to be unattractive, I’m not sure how many women these days majoring in a Mrs. degree. On the other hand, women generally still wait to be asked for dates and marriage, and for at least the last 20 years boys and young men have been socialized by their teachers, Leftist politicians, and the media to believe that men are toxic unless they behave just like girls/women, which means more and more males would rather watch porn than act out their toxic male aggressiveness by asking a woman out, especially when 90% of the time the woman is going to think they are unattractive or claim to not be heterosexual. Throw in the fact that 60% of university grads are female and that they seldom want to marry down, and that about 50% of young men and women are overweight or worse, and the Mrs. part starts to look even more unlikely. Feminism: is there anything it can’t do?
You are right that it is a long road back, but you have to put your feet on the path. I have explained how I tried with my own. she is in position to be worthy of the best.
This is an interesting and relevant discussion… I’ll defer to the more “seasoned” commenters whose input I’ve come to respect… I was born in 1980, thus haven’t seen the 1960’s and 1970’s transitions in American society…
…I was too young to understand the 80’s, but I remember the 90’s pretty fondly. The music was a bit vapid, but it seemed largely apolitical, optimistic, and still somewhat good (note: I largely rejected it anyway, going to the dark side as a huge Metallica fan). I was a happy 19-year old as the year 2000 approached, with every expectation of a pretty good life…
…obviously 9/11 was transformational, a stunning blow to the idyllic era of the 90’s. It was especially hard for me because it was my dream to one day be an airline pilot, and watching Boeings used as weapons felt personal. But I remember the reaction of our broader society was much different: people were openly patriotic, I think GWB had over 80% approval (!!) in the months after. But he also didn’t leverage 9/11 as a political weapon against Democrats or even his recently departed predecessor… I remember a few people who wanted to stir up the “we deserved it for meddling” narrative, but they were drowned out by a vast majority of Americans who seemed to return to love of their country and were pissed off at the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked us.
The wars that followed I’m probably not the best to comment on, as I spent 36 months of my twenties in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a personal perspective that perhaps clouds objective judgment. I saw what war is – which is to say, extremely wasteful – but I also don’t think it was driven for oil or M-I-C profiteering. The latter was always in the orbit of the broader military mission, I’ll concede that, but it was always the mission first on the ground. The military seemed genuinely intent on nation-building and improving the lives of Iraqis and Afghans… we just sucked at it and had to fight low-level conflict/high political impact insurgencies at the same time. The way I remember it, the media turned on the war, and with them, popular American opinion. The media leveraged every negative incident – which there’s a lot of in a war – and that was it. The US military was going to lose no matter what it did…
Then Obama was elected. I was in Tikrit at the time, watching the election coverage from a huge airbase on my third tour. I was detached from politics then, all I remember thinking at the time was “he’s a great speaker” and “well, this should be the end of the race issue”…
..post-2010 was my reintroduction back into civilian life, starting my flying career over from scratch. I remember being happy at work, but leery of what seemed to be a media and left-of-center culture emboldened by a president who was unapologetically liberal and, more significantly, anti-Republican. Obama still spoke well, but there was no moderation, no nuance… everything was dripping with disdain of his political opponents. I watched as media, entertainment, education, even corporations seemed to outright worship Obama… which was very confusing to me as I didn’t see how he was that great. His withdrawal from Iraq especially as a fundamentalist Islamic army of darkness quickly filled the void… the horrors that ensued were much worse than anything I’d seen in Iraq during OIF, so I was further confused that the media didn’t leap onto it like they had before. The American public largely didn’t seem to care, either…
As I watched media and popular narratives diverge wildly from observable reality – in line with what appeared to be a clear political agenda – two things happened: I got political, and I started to get pessimistic about the future of the country. By the end of Obama’s first term, I saw him as a clear threat to American society and its future. Now here we are.
So now that this has gotten long-winded, the question is: does this square with your perspectives? Was it truly a better era in the 90’s, or was that just a reflection of my youth? Was the “decline” that I perceived post-2010 really there, or was it always there and I was just too unaware to notice it?
Good comment as usual Jeff – and thank you for your service. As I’ve noted before, every generation has their challenges and problems, and certainly the hatred and conflicts of the late mid-60s to the end of the Vietnam war and Watergate offer some similarities with the BLM, transgenderism, Russiagate, conflicts in Afghanistan/Iraq that we currently/recently experienced.
But there are also some differences. The civil rights, feminism, and gay rights of the 60s and 70s did address real issues impacting large portions of the population. Blacks really were treated as second class citizens, the roles available to women really were limited, the laws against homosexuality really were draconian. Vietnam did involve draftees who often didn’t want to go and be among the almost 60,000 killed by Communists who really were a threat to peace and prosperity, and Watergate really did happen even though its importance was greatly exaggerated by the partisan media. But those efforts to make life fairer by making racial/sex discrimination illegal and to create a volunteer military of professionals with the best equipment in the world did largely succeed in solving the problems that had created the strife and conflict, and by and large Americans were still proud to be Americans.
In contrast, transgenderism is a mental illness that afflicts a tiny portion of people, BLM is built totally on lies regarding black interactions with police, Russiagate did not happen and was totally the creation of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the nation building exercises in Iraq and Afghanistan did not greatly impact US society with casualties or economic sacrifice in comparison to conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. Furthermore, poverty is at all time lows, we are more energy independent than at any time since the early 1970s (although Biden is trying to reverse it), and females, blacks, gays, Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hispanics, etc. have more freedoms and opportunities than ever before. Yet the media, academia, and Leftist politicians seem to believe that everything is worse than ever and the history of the country is something to be ashamed of.
My theory of this lack of appreciation or sense of proportion is that females, blacks, gays, etc. all thought that once restrictions were removed they would be happy and equality would be achieved. Instead, we have lots of people who have gotten almost all they ever wished for and are still unhappy, and since they have been taught they are victims and therefore can’t possibly be to blame, they have to create enemies who happen to be males, whites (including Asian and Hispanic whites), heterosexuals, Christians, and worst of all Trump voting Republicans.
For me the creeping pessimism had already started. I was working in the financial industry on 9/11, and as I watched the events unfold that morning, I immediately thought of a wonderful, well respected client I used to talk with every 1st of the month. He had just moved into the 99th floor of one of the towers 3 months prior. It hit me very hard that he was dead, his secretary I used to joke around with was dead, and all the other people I spoke with in his office were dead. All because they just got up that morning and went to work. When the rallying cries in the country broke out that week, “We will never forget!”, I remember instantly thinking “Yes we will, and faster than you think”.
That’s how I remember my pessimism for the country from back then as a 40 year old.
The Republic was killed in the Civil War. The seeds of societal decay were planted 1960s while the long march through the institutions progressed unhindered (and every President since had a hand in it in one form or another, the GOP being controlled opposition to the ratchet effect) but started to become obvious in the early aughts and then celebrated and gloated over now.
Black Jesus and the likeminded just waited until his second term to start saying the quiet parts out loud.
Americans never had the stomach for Empire building, particularly for societies not at all suited to ‘Western Democracy’. Go Rome or go home.
It is amazing how size perspectives change. I remember when GM downsized their full-size line in 1977 and how it seemed so amazing that the cars could be so much smaller and lighter and yet have the same or more interior room and comfort, and yet compared to popular vehicles of today they are still huge in physical size except in comparison to crew cab pickups that have largely replaced them. The Olds 88 Tom highlights used 218 inches long on a 116 inch wheelbase and well under 4,000 lbs to seat 6 in reasonable comfort, but a Buick Enclave that will seat 7 in even greater comfort is 202 inches long on a 118 inch wheelbase and weighs almost 1,000 lbs more. If CAFE hasn’t favored trucks and SUVs, I wonder how long it would have taken automakers and/or US consumers to switch from the traditional sedan/station wagon format to the much more space efficient minivan/CUV format that has largely replaced them.
In an effort to bring this great discussion back to the car. Do you think that being shorter and having an economy level in line with the Delta 88 with the 3.8 V6 that was probably meant for fleets, meant that the Enclave was a superior offering to the Delta? I can see how given divorce rates, women were making ever more of the car buying decisions. A father in a large intact family will be called frequently to drive a big load. So one can see eschewing the PLC in favor of the Delta two door with the big back seat. Giving up that to completely cater to the women seems another step in the decline.
Eventually this was not enough, as compromises never are. The pickups that replaced dignified sedans, must now have back seats, and more recently back doors to go with their goofy village people macho styling. When will it be time to admit a mistake and bring back a Delta and dignity for men?
Yes the Enclave and similar ilk are far superior to a classic full-size sedan in all respects. For a father with a large intact family the Enclave is far more comfortable and has far more cargo versatility, and mom would also like the more manageable exterior dimensions and higher seating position. Women were complaining about the bloated size of full-size sedans ever since they moved beyond the reasonable size of the Tri-Five Chevies, and so far the CUV form factor has had much more staying power with females than the full-size station wagon or the Minivan. Meanwhile, the bigger is better format preferred by many men has shifted to crew-cab pickups and I don’t see men ever going back to full-size sedans even though women also generally think pickups are also too big, especially when they are used as commuter vehicles rather than work vehicles.
Yes, poorer handling, poorer fuel economy, higher price, higher center of gravity, and since the cargo area shares the passenger compartment you can hear all the crap you haul sliding around/falling over, and the lovely sound of the tailgate rattling. All so Fern the dog mom can haul her chihuahua and guava fattuccino around. “Oh Turner we need a CUV to go to the vegan restaurant and Whole Foods with Snap, our stupid dog!”
You are correct Tom, but compare the number of nimble handling sports cars and sports sedans that are sold relative to CUVs/SUVs/Pickups. Sadly, most people voting with their dollars could care less about handling and center of gravity, or crap sliding around, and modern technology means the hit in fuel economy is pretty painless versus a sedan. Furthermore, most full-size sedans of the “brougham era” were not noted for nimble handling or excellent fuel economy, and now that Fern and Turner are 10+ years and 50+ lbs heavier than the typical brougham era sedan buyer, the taller format of the CUV makes getting in and out a whole lot more convenient for those rides to Whole Foods with Snap.
Many think that GMs best era ever was the 60s. They had a model then called the Greenbriar based on Corvair mechanicals that would have looked great on your spreadsheets where max room on a minimum footprint is the ultimate. The rear engine allowed for unusually high levels of traction. There was a high level of economy for the day and the steering was light and full of feedback as to what the 4 wheel irs was up to, often quite a bit. The sales were miniscule. The Greenbriar did not give off a sense of being designed for the buyer by people like the buyer who understood him. Woman played a much smaller part in buying decisions and had not yet discovered higher seating positions making them slightly less terrified of driving. So thank God we got cars built for the breadwinner.
The Enclave is a fine vehicle, my SIL had two with a Rendezvous Ultra before it. The higher priced line is very important to GM and the care taken with it shows. That said, it is designed by a diverse committee for 45 year old women. Are box wine holders that keep your wine glass filled far off? Sorry, I don’t identify.
The difference between the Greenbriar and Enclave is that the Enclave offers the performance, luxury, and comfort of a very good sedan from today (and superior to anything from the 70s or 80s), while the Greenbriar was slow, spartan, and not nearly as comfortable as an contemporary Impala or Galaxy. Women of means or with funding from daddy, sugar daddy, or hubbie are rarely going to give up luxury or comfort, and while performance is usually not very important, they don’t want slow either. If Chevy or Olds had built an Enclave type body on top of a 1964 Chevelle/Cutlass chassis, made it available with all the power and luxury options of a Impala/98, and priced it competitively with a full-size sedan with some stylish marketing to sell it, I suspect it would have done well.
If America of nostalgic memory were a car, it wouldn’t be some young man’s pony or muscle car – it would be a reliable, hard-working, middle class family man’s Delta 88.
It really is amazing to see how quickly Oldsmobile went from being the 3rd most popular car brand in the US to termination. But the popularity of the brand was probably a key reason – it isn’t very prestigious to attend a 20th class reunion driving a Olds if half of your classmates show up with the same car, and the other half notice that a nicely equipped Caprice is just as roomy, just as comfortable, just as well made, slightly cheaper, and available with stronger motors, or that nothing from GM is as cool, well made, or prestigious as a Volvo, Saab, BMW, MB, or as reliable and well made as a Toyota or Honda.
It may not be prestigious, but may be comforting around your mid career cohort to see other Olds, Mercurys and Chryslers. Thus if someone shows their old quirkiness by showing up in a Saab, or a Wagoneer, it is just personality, not a threat. A Rolls or a Ferrari, will just be thought of as sad over compensation.
Is it a comfort to see your cohorts driving mid-level brands that have become nothing but rebadged versions of cheaper brands? Does it show good taste when the fancy brands are often uglier clones of the cheaper brands? Does it show technological sophistication to pay extra for a fancy brand that uses the same level of technology as the cheaper brand? If you compare a Plymouth with a Chrysler in 1939, or Chevy with an Olds in 1949, or a Ford with a Mercury in 1959 you see very distinct differences in size, styling, power, technical specifications, luxury touches, etc. that helped people understand just what they were getting when paying more for the fancier brand, but by the 1980s these differences were gone. Meanwhile imports offered real differences technical and styling, and even the cheaper imports had higher visual quality if not always higher real quality, and if you wanted to support US brands a Jeep, Blazer, or fancy F-150 also offered distinctions that said much more about you as a person than buying a Caprice clone 88.
“Is it a comfort to see your cohorts driving mid-level brands that have become nothing but rebadged versions of cheaper brands? Does it show good taste when the fancy brands are often uglier clones of the cheaper brands? Does it show technological sophistication to pay extra for a fancy brand that uses the same level of technology as the cheaper brand?”
You have a point Tom, but I would argue that Lexus is doing a better job of differentiating their styling (spindle grill) and feature sets (i.e. leather seats only available on Lexus versions), and offering flagship models (LS, LC/RC, RX) not available in a Toyota clone, than GM, Ford, Chrysler were doing in the 70s and 80s. Lexus also has differentiated itself on dealer service and warranty, which has usually been a clear cut above Toyota, but not often the case with an Olds versus Chevy – particularly if they were sold at the same dealership.
On the other hand, to support your viewpoint and my analysis of 80s era GM, you could also argue that Lexus has not in recent times been doing enough to differentiate themselves from Toyota, because their US sales have been basically flat for at least the last 10 years and they are increasingly reliant on their cheaper (and more Toyota like) models for those sales. It becomes more difficult to maintain meaningful differences when competitive pressures force automakers to make their cheaper offerings more attractive and close the gap with the luxury version.
I’m posting a comment here to restart the reply prompts… I really find this topic interesting and constructive.
Stingray: I think that’s spot-on. Every generation may experience the same evolution of perspective, but it’s hard to ignore that as the mainstream narrative tilted against the country and its “traditional” values – now to the point of being openly hostile to our own founding and history – these shifts deteriorate the core of the American identity as each generation evolves within it. I think it’s probably better to instill pride, appreciation, and patriotism first and then allow age and experience to challenge those ideas… instilling resentment, grievance, racism, sexism and hatred doesn’t seem to challenge many of the younger generation. They’re just awful, cynical people before they’ve even had the “opportunity” to be screwed in real-world experience…
CitationMan: great comment, great perspective. It sort of lends credibility to the other argument… that generational perspective is largely the evolution of the individual. And you were right… our “national unity” post-9/11 was squandered pretty quickly. I think the follow-up question is: who’s to blame? GWB and neocons for an unwinnable, unpopular war? His opponents who clearly desired to see him fail for their own political advantage?
I know GWB isn’t popular in the current context, and certainly not in the last years of his administration… but my enduring view of his legacy was Hurricane Katrina. That was the last time that I can remember a politician took real responsibility for a crisis, simply because the position he occupied demanded it. Clearly the mayor of New Orleans (D) and governor of Louisiana (D) were to blame, but GWB took the blame anyway… I’m sure he knew the media would eat him alive for it, but he did it because he thought it was the core mission of public service to do so. Predictably the media did exactly that (“George Bush doesn’t care about black people!”) and I think that moment was the death of, as Jack might say, “serious” American politics… it’s been a scorched-earth culture war ever since and it’s not going to end well.
But maybe I’m wrong… Thoughts?
Katrina was the one thing I would cut W a little slack on….New Orleans is a city built under sea level with a century’s worth of neglected infrastructure, famously incompetent and corrupt local government and a chaos prone population. It was only going to go one way, heckofajob Brownie or not.
The Patriot Act, the Forever Wars, and pedal to the metal Muslim immigration after 9/11….he owns that.
“Invade the world, invite the world” is the best summing-up I have heard of the Bush Era.
“Invade the world, invite the world”
Right, but intent is everything here… was GWB just too optimistic? Did he believe in the capabilities of the US military too much? Did he just love the country too much? He seemed willing to sacrifice political advantage if he thought the course of action still benefited the nation overall…
…maybe I’m guilty of partisan blindness, but I don’t see Obama as anything like this. He always maneuvered politically, he never admitted fault. The blame was always hicks in WV, “obstructionist Republicans”, now the Trumpers… his intent seems to be power purely for the sake of power… did he ever do anything to the contrary? Again… serious policy debate has to include intent.
He exhibited the optimism of a born again alcoholic and aw shucks mannerism of a fake Texan but was surrounded by a quite dastardly Machiavellian circle. Maybe he was played. Maybe not. We most certainly were.
“It was only going to go one way, heckofajob Brownie or not”
Exactly. So my point being, I think GWB really just wanted to address the Katrina crisis. Politically it was a coffin, no matter what he did… but was there ever a time when the media would recognize the reality of the situation – in this case, as you say, a below-sea-level Democrat slum, in a Democrat state, swamped by a force of nature – and meet the president, whoever he was, halfway? That is to say, objectively and in full consideration of all factors? Instead, it cemented the hatred of GWB, which translated to the worship of Obama, which I feel directly resulted in the rise of Trump.
I’m not old enough to remember how the press treated JFK, Nixon, or Reagan… and it just seems that most people in those eras trusted the news… or maybe more accurately, the news was mostly trustworthy. Thus, popular opinion followed its conclusions…
I feel like that’s what’s fundamentally broken now about American society. You are literally an idiot if you take American news media at face value. So when the press became truly untrustworthy – and by that, I mean overtly and shamelessly deceptive, partisan, and propagandist – then there was no attempt to even understand issues coherently, much less address them. Everything became a political weapon. Both parties are guilty of this, although it seems to me Democrats always have the initiative and Republicans are always forced to react to it… Trump finally altered the dynamic, but not so much that it could change the self-immolation already underway… no we are drowning in crises and not only are we unable to solve them, no one in a position of power even wants to… surely it wasn’t always like this?
JFK was a god, the press didn’t touch how he beat Nixon with the dead vote in Chicago and Texas, or mention is bad health or philandering, and his Bay of Pigs failure or his failures to get civil rights bills passed. And when he was shot by a Communist with possible ties to the CIA and Mafia, the media said it was due to Right Wing hatred and extremism. Ironically, a candidate with the JFK policies of strong military, tough on Communists, and tax cuts for the rich would be considered Far Right today.
Nixon was an unlikable man who was constantly trying to be liked by the media. He was highly competent in enacting policies that Democrats would like such as the creation of the EPA and OSHA, price controls, and opening relations with China and the USSR, but was still hated by the media because he was part of the anti-Communist McCarthy era (along with John and Robert Kennedy), so when Watergate happened he was crucified.
Reagan was a very likable man who largely followed the same policies as JFK – strong military, anti-Communist, and tax cuts, but was perhaps the first US president to be compared unfavorably to Hitler by the media (Adolf was smarter than dunce Reagan). And every Republican president since has been called Hitler while in office, and becomes a great statesman and gentleman of high moral character when he is no longer eligible for office. The media fell all over themselves praising Reagan when he died, and loves GWB now.
Agreed. We are in full ‘Pravda’ mode. They pretend to tell the truth and we pretend to believe them.
I think this presents the biggest division between the ‘Boomers’ and those after them: the fundamental trust in institutions…..government, academia, media, science, medicine, employers, advertising, corporations, the courts, elections, the military, as being honest or even basically competent….is all but gone.
GWB’s biggest problem (and a problem shared by most Republicans) is that he really wanted to be liked by everyone, and he really wanted to solve problems. He thought that if he didn’t take offense at every insult made against him by Democrats and the media, and if he tried to work “across the aisle” and compromise, that they would reciprocate and treat him and his policies with respect and fair coverage. He really did try to improve education with his (and Ted Kennedy’s) no child left behind, he really did try to get bi-partisan support for the war against terror, he really did try to get a compromise on illegal immigration and solve the coming crisis with the social security pyramid scheme by moving it towards private accounts, and he really did see the housing bubble coming and try to reign in Freddy and Fannie May, but with every one of these initiatives he was branded by his opponents and the media as “uncaring”, “incompetent”, “racist”, or compared unfavorably with Hitler. Even his nation building was done with a good heart, but was portrayed as corrupt when it more accurately should have been portrayed as wasteful fantasy.
The problem with Washington and the media is that they don’t actually want to solve problems, because they thrive on failure and divisiveness. No bureaucracy will ever fix the problem they were created to solve, because solving problems means smaller budgets, smaller staffs, less prestige, and ultimately termination, while failure is always due to lack of funding, staffing, and authority that brings more power and prestige when it is inevitably granted. And as government gets bigger and more in control, every group with a grievance, every entrepreneur with an idea, and every business in fear of competition realizes the easiest and most certain way to get rich is to grease the palms of a few powerful politicians and bureaucrats rather than try to please millions of often fickle and uninterested citizens or consumers. Thus someone like Trump who comes in and actually tries to fix things, and didn’t seem to care that much if people liked him, was the ultimate threat to the government gravy train, and why he received more fake and unfair coverage than any president in history, and why millions of fake voters chose brain dead Joe Biden.
Yeah, Dubya wants to be liked by everyone except the conservatives who put him in office. Under that phony Texas cowboy exterior is a stunningly out-of-touch elitist who spends his post-presidency scolding anyone who doesn’t want to flood this country with cheap labor via unfettered immigration.
“Even his nation building was done with a good heart…”
Please. I fell for that at the time, too, but am willing to admit how foolish that was in retrospect. I won’t call him a war criminal over it, just a massive idiot who would sign off on whatever his dad’s cronies told him to do. It is funny though how all the neocons who pushed for that war are embracing the Democrats now.
“Thus someone like Trump who comes in and actually tries to fix things, and didn’t seem to care that much if people liked him…”
You’re blind if you think Trump wasn’t OBSESSED with people liking him. He was too busy engaging in petty Twitter squabbles to notice that even his own party was constantly bamboozling him. I still like the guy, but his vaccine-shilling and continued susceptibility to ass-kissing by swamp monsters like Lindsey Graham shows me he’s learned nothing.
I see your points but we can disagree. Lots of people do stupid things with a good heart in wanting to “fix things”. I believe most Leftist voters actually believe in their hearts that giving poor people money will fix poverty, or that police are the reason that black people commit crime, but just because they have good intentions doesn’t mean their stupid beliefs will actually work if implemented. GWB seemed to think the only thing keeping Iran and Afghanistan from being constitutional republics was evil/backwards leadership, and not stupid citizenry and ancient tribal hatreds and divisions that won’t be fixed by any national building.
I also see your point about Trump, but he fought back against people who didn’t treat him fairly rather than try to make nice in the hope they would like him in return. I think the most dangerous thing about Trump was that he would have given the Democrats a lot of what they wanted if they had treated him with some kindness and respect, just because he liked making deals.
GWB was not enough of a racial realist. Knowing we had the strength to conquer the countries, he thought it would be easy as it was with civilzed Germany, Japan and Italy to advanced free countries. What did that foolishness cost? He thought if we work with China that trade balances would even out. What did that foolishness cost. GWB thought if you increase home ownership among the lower class, with something to loose, they would transform into responsible citizens. What did that foolishness cost? GWB thought that if he was replaced by Obama, not only would old rival McCain be given his comeuppance, but the world would be enthralled to be lead by such a shining symbol of whatever. Instead we just get stuck with fat, indebted, barren Stacy Abrams times 1000 in every leadership position. What did that foolishness cost?
Above I debated with Stingray whether the straight-laced reunion with Delta 88s and families was superior to singles, car payments and Supras and BMWs, he finds more sophisticated. No one will be surprised by my view of that. With mistakes like GWB and all of his successors, soon enough we will all be broke and can’t have either one.
John – yes I tend to like BMWs, and admire Toyotas (but not get enthusiastic about them), but I am also a huge fan of American cars when they were the best in the world (i.e. mid-60s and earlier). I would also be very happy if Detroit still made the best vehicles in the world, and was still the world leader in vehicle production and sales, but they aren’t and anyone who believes that the declining relative quality and sophistication of US brands had nothing to do with their slide is delusional. But we can debate the causes for the declining quality and sophistication of US cars, just as we can debate the causes of family breakdown or the failures of the GWB administration, but just because we disagree on the causes does not mean that I am happy with the outcome.
As I noted above, I think a lot of the current unhappiness and a major source of political hostility is the fact that the Left won most of the battles and now don’t want to take responsibility for the big mess and failures that have been the result of their victories. In part this because human nature is to deny responsibility, but also because the leadership of the Left benefits from the misery and failures their policies create up until the whole thing goes up in a big explosive pile of smoke and fire.
Guessing that the pretend reunion with the Delta 88 is early 80s and knowing what a Delta cost, 12k? out the door. What would you have the 42 year olds drive? Now take that idealized picture of the Delta 88 drivers and modify it to what your car’s drivers would have looked like. Is that really a better picture of a country you want to live in?
I have nothing against a 42 year old arriving at his reunion with an 88, but I dispute the assertion that it would have been seen by his classmates as a sign of success or prestige (especially since the reunion location looks to be a toney/preppy area in the NE where Detroit iron was quick to fade in prestige). Now send the reunion back 20 years to the early 60s, and someone arriving with a new 88 would definitely had been seen as doing well in most parts of the country. Trends and brands fade, industries decline, and it isn’t always a sign that the country is falling apart. After all, strong family ties are probably stronger in Sweden, Germany, or Japan (where they still make more prestigious and/or more successful car brands) than in most parts of the US then or now.
So a Dodge, er I guess I should have made the d lower case. Oh well, people should expect a few typos in comments. Toly excluded, most of us remember the eighties as young adults better than the sixties.
Given that, lets go back to the 50s and imagine our grandfathers going to the 20 year reunion. Driving past all the Oldsmobiles old enough to earn Stingray’s respect, here comes our suave grandfather in a borrowed Maserati to sneak off with the well preserved prom queen. It was much more fun to be crazy in a sane world than sane in a crazy one.
“I have nothing against a 42 year old arriving at his reunion with an 88, but I dispute the assertion that it would have been seen by his classmates as a sign of success or prestige (especially since the reunion location looks to be a toney/preppy area in the NE where Detroit iron was quick to fade in prestige).”
And what does it matter? If 20 years after HS you still hung with anybody from then, they know you drive an 88.
If not and you are seeing people for the 1st time in 20 years, it will be 20 years before you see them again. If you and them (or them and you) didn’t stay connected, a couple of hours at the VFW hall hosting the reunion isn’t going to change that.
Also, the only people you are impressing or getting their disdain are the ones that see you with the car. You come in late, everyone is inside. You come in early, everyone hasn’t arrived. If you come in at the same time as someone else, did you even know that person in HS?
If they see you leave in it, well same thing. The ones that matter, know what you drive anyways. The others will remember and joke about it to you at your 40th reunion?
If the place has valet parking, the kid with pimples cares. “Yay!!!” I doubt will be the valet in 20 years. Nor will he remember you.
If this kind of stuff is important to you to impress complete strangers, then that’s your issues. Because that’s what 90+% are, strangers. They were then, and more so now.
You are probably correct dejal (although I’ve never been to any class reunion), but the ad portrays the 88 as the center of attention at a reunion, which means the GM brand managers are trying to convey the prestige of owning an Oldsmobile even if the buyer never attends a reunion. All ads exaggerate, but effective ads usually also have some sort of realism/plausibility that helps sell the message, and I don’t believe this ad is very effective.
“What did that foolishness cost?”
Salient point, all of them. And I think your conclusion is correct. None of this will matter soon, anyway. I guess it’s just detached curiosity to talk about how we got here, where it really went from “sustainable dysfunction” to “unrecoverable”…
“I’m sure he knew the media would eat him alive for it, but he did it because he thought it was the core mission of public service to do so.”
As a globalist and an islamic-terror apologist, I find it more likely that his core mission was to get Barrack Hussein Obama into the White House.
“As a globalist and an islamic-terror apologist, I find it more likely that his core mission was to get Barrack Hussein Obama into the White House”
But do you really believe that? Maybe I’m missing something… I know GWB has maintained a friendship with the power players in the Great American Capitulation, namely Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama… but here again, I feel like it’s something that the position of a president – even a retired one – demands.
No argument, though, that even then his affability is misplaced… he’s yet another support beam for the structure of anti-Americanism that has destroyed our society. I suppose enabling it is just as bad as doing it…
I don’t believe that GWB wanted Obama in the White House, but he certainly wasn’t a fan of McCain. In any case, his unpopularity at the end of his term meant that he had no coattails to offer either candidate, and I’m sure that neither McCain or Obama would have wanted his endorsement or help on the campaign trail. As much as I dislike Obama, his sheer incompetence at anything besides reading a teleprompter, and laziness about anything that didn’t involve golf and hobnobbing with the rich and famous on Martha’s Vineyard, meant that his legacy was much less than it could have been (although the Leftist politicalization of the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and Military leadership are lasting and extremely dangerous). On the other hand, McCain’s proved to be a jerk and a traitor to his party and country in lending credence to the Russiagate crap and his unwillingness to vote down Obamacare to keep Trump from having a win, so there were no good choices in 2008.
At the end of the day, he sent young Americans to die and be maimed in conflicts that he didn’t think were important enough to win. When Saudis attacked our soil, his first priority was protecting Saudis from retribution. I don’t have a high opinion of any member of the Bush clan.
All in all, the GWB administration was a failure, partly due to his own errors and weaknesses, and partly due to the unrelentingly partisan media. You can attribute the GWB protection of the Saudis as corrupt or incompetent, but I think the more likely explanation was the US need for Saudi oil and the need for Saudi support for any military engagements in the region. Remember, this was before the fracking revolution and we were much more dependent on OPEC oil in 2001.
“Remember, this was before the fracking revolution and we were much more dependent on OPEC oil in 2001.”
And history is repeating itself in 2022.
Also, without Bush’ cooperation, there was no way for Obama to end up in the White House. Are we going to pretend that the deep state could have prevented the entire GWB administration from making it known that Obama went to college as a foreign student? That Obama shouldn’t have had security clearance sufficient to stand on a stage next to an elected official? There are two parties to divide us. The Republicans exist to prevent actual conservatives or patriots from having a voice in governance. Without the Republican party’s duplicity, we wouldn’t have a demented child sniffer destroying the country for China. The Bush family is as awful an example of real Republicans as you can find.
Yes I believe the deep state could and did prevent the leaking of any intelligence that would damage the Democrat candidate for president, whether it was Hillary or Obama. Furthermore, there was already lots of damaging information about Obama available on the fringes that the media buried. I remember Charles Krauthammer noting how amazing it was that we knew so little about Obama, how there were no stories about his family, no stories about his time at Harvard, or his teaching at Chicago, much less stories about his radical pastor, his terrorist and mobster friends and supporters, the questionable authorship of his books, or his questionable eligibility for the presidency (i.e. press releases for his book claiming he was born in Kenya).
Remember, more than half the country still thinks Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016, and well under half are aware of the Hunter Biden laptop and Biden crime family evidence contained on the hard-drive.
“The Republicans exist to prevent actual conservatives or patriots from having a voice in governance”
You’re probably right… but I guess my question goes back to intent. Is the Republican evil and diabolical, a neoconservative globalist organization that will sell-out American society for the enrichment of its power brokers? Or is it the gravitational pull of politicians who have a (genuine or misplaced) belief in Americanism? The former is perhaps a not-so-secret conspiracy, and a lot of policy outcomes point towards this… China trade policy being particularly relevant now. But the latter has its evidence, too… I think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Massie are Republicans for a reason. Trump coming from the Democratic Party to run as a Republican was for a reason. Examining each would be an entirely separate discussion, but I think these examples point towards what is simply an inept political organization that is perhaps always facing an uphill battle precisely because of what it believes: to maintain some functioning version of what the founders intended and (mostly) within the boundaries of the Constitution (to prevent foot-in-mouth, maybe “American tradition” is the better word here)… i.e., the very low bar of simply federalism, not being Marxist, not throwing out history in the garbage.
This platform just doesn’t seem to be a recipe for any success, I suppose the Trump aberration excepted. Our new generations want perpetual social change, a generous welfare state, a government that’s the sole arbiter of “justice”… they are skeptical of anything like “American values”, conservatism, or just about anything traditional. Here the Democrats have capitalized brilliantly… their recent slump being not a result of bad politics, but the fact that they are actually governing on their platform instead of just selling it on the campaign trail.
So I think frustration, maybe even resentment, of the Republican party is justified… but I tend to think it’s because they fail on the political battlefield, not the ideological one. The recipe for political victory requires truly diabolical leadership, the wind of the American media at your back, and the high ground of the culture war. The Republican Party clearly lacks all three… so it loses before it even enters the ring.
“I think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Massie are Republicans for a reason. Trump coming from the Democratic Party to run as a Republican was for a reason.”
They ran as Republicans because of who Republican voters are, not because of what the party does when it is in power. Republicans were in power when they let our schools become marxist indoctrination center. It was Bush that put John Roberts on the Supreme Court. There are always just enough Republicans ready to fall on their swords when the American people need to be saved from Obama care, or the United Nations. Republicans were in power when they chose Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, who would only take the job if he couldn’t be fired. John Boehner was also selected by Republicans to lead the Republican party. Mitch McConnell was chosen by the Republicans as their Senate leader, no matter how synonymous he is with failure. You can’t blame the media, the teachers unions and the deep state for the Republicans’ comprehensive failure to protect the American people and the constitution when these are the leaders they choose for themselves.
Jeff – I believe that it probably takes a billionaire outsider to have any chance of avoiding the corrupting temptations of DC. A true conservative will be offered lots of status, money, and power to lean Left and make the government even more powerful and dominant. His/her spouse will be offered lucrative employment in the swamp or as a lobbyist to the swamp, and they will be invited to all the important cocktail parties and get favorable press treatment, but only if they play along and support the goals of the bureaucracy. His/her kids will be hounded at school for being “mean” and “uncool” by sticking to conservative values. There is a reason so many stick around DC even after they lose an election, rather than head back to Wyoming or Utah or Iowa, and it isn’t the culture, low cost of living, or fine public services of DC.
The only thing that keeps the Democrats from having permanent control of all 3 branches is that their programs don’t work in reality, and if they actually do what they promise everything blows up and voters revolt, which is why they are pushing election “reforms” so they can print as many ballots as they need to win every election no matter how unhappy the citizenry is.
“There are always just enough Republicans ready to fall on their swords when the American people need to be saved from Obama care, or the United Nations.”
I think they have a spread-sheet. Everyone gets to a maverick occasionally, just enough to make it seem like they have convictions that go against the party line.
“We need 3 Yes votes on the D bill coming up”
“I’ll do it, it’s been six months since I did one.”
Of course, Romney and company do it almost all the time.
Good job Tom – your Olds 88 pictures and story have generated a very interesting and almost entirely sane discussion.
I was going to address this, too… I hope Mr. Klockau doesn’t mind his piece getting hijacked! For what it’s worth, I’m getting something out of it… and it all goes back to Oldsmobiles. Sort of.
I agree – I came here to comment that the character of the car was totally changed by the rims; and was happily surprised.
(sort-of) off topic – did Oswald really have ties to the CIA and/or Mafia? I know Oliver Stone would have us think so, but I didn’t think there was any reality behind the rumors. To me, it looked like a communist shot the President because he thought it would make him a big deal to the Soviets.
There was definitely a cover-up, but it was Bobby and his handlers trying to keep the public from blaming the communists; and insisting that we invade Cuba. Especially since JFK himself had made a backroom deal with Kruschev during the Cuban Missle “Crisis”, agreeing that we would do no such thing.
My point in bringing up the CIA and Mafia is that the media never touched this angle or any other angle that would disparage the “Camelot” Kennedy image. The mob got Kennedy elected and were not happy that he let Bobby go after them, and the CIA were unhappy with how things were going with Cuba and Vietnam, so there were lots of people who had motive and ability to kill Kennedy. The one thing that most strongly suggests there is more to the story than a single gunman sitting in a schoolbook depository is the continuing refusal to release all the investigative records around the assassination – the deep state was able to slow walk their release until after Trump left office and now Biden has buried them again. Incidentally, the Kennedy family was partial to Oldsmobiles.
Yep—a Delmont was what Teddy was driving when he drowned his date!
Though it may not matter, since Brandon is going to be let Putin go right into something that has been the catalyst for the mushroom clouds to bloom in every nuke movie of the ‘80s, and we’ll probably all be radioactive dust by Easter, I’d still, provided the Ukrainian situation doesn’t take us past DEFCON ONE, love to have a Cutlass, Delta, or something else from this era, in survivor condition, and maybe needing a couple thousand bucks in NOS parts and other sorting out, kept in a storage unit during the winter, and taken out as a summer toy. We’ve got a weekly car show on the lawn of the school administration building each summer, plus a park & shine in a local Wendy’s parking lot each week, plus I’m also close to Detroit or Lansing to be able to partake in Olds meets. However, as I’ve stated, both here and on TTAC (which I’m back to perusing since they’ve—for now—gotten rid of the intrusive Tundra ad that graced EVERY page load since December), the sedan versions of most G, B and C-Bodies which haven’t been turned into Chinese laundry appliances are probably in the hands of a collective demographic which only values sound systems that could topple skyscrapers, tires off of passenger jets, and seats reclined at a seventy-degree position permanently!
In other news, are the Colonnade intermediates starting to appreciate in value? Seems like it.
I sincerely hope we don’t raise a finger in Europe for any reason.
The United States has been invaded more thoroughly, and more triumphantly, over the past thirty years than the Ukraine ever will, and no fingers were lifted there, nor was there any concern voiced by anyone except for the moment when it was feared that the death of Kate Steinle might lead to fewer vibrant food trucks on the streets, or something like that.
I don’t see why the Ukrainian citizens shouldn’t have a right to open their borders to a steady supply of cheap nannies, maids, gardeners, and drywallers just like we enjoy in the USA thanks to the diversity welcoming policies of the Biden/Obama/Bush/Clinton administrations. Sure a few Russian rapists, gang thugs, and other undesirables might also sneak in, but it is a small price to pay for diversity and vibrant food truck scene in Kiev.
The Euros decided to go green and decided that Russia was the way to outsource those nasty symbols of carbon power. That’s on them.
Also, what’s on them, is talk over the last few years of an EU Military, separate (or replacing NATO). This would be a good time for them to start.
Easy to talk about peace, love, understanding, social justice and insult the US about those issues every step of the way when they STILL all don’t pay their fair share.
“We have extremely long vacations in the summer, not like you in the US”.
Pay your NATO bill.
If there is credence to these stories (standard ZH caveat)….
Thankfully, Kiev, Germany and Russia are being pretty chill about the whole thing. The contrast/dissonance is frightening and beyond Orwellian, or perhaps just the barking of an old blind and toothless dog. I’m taking bets on the first mention the ‘mineshaft gap’. That clown Milley is a perfect stand in for Buck Turgidson.
Usually when someone is a “puppet” of someone else, the someone else has a “puppet” for a reason.
You’d think that that Putin would have been doing this with Trump in office. But, nope, they are willing to go up against the guy who stood up to Corn Pop.
Putin to his staff? “Is this guy serious?” Staff: “Sir, he’s barely sentient.”
He can be as out of it as he wants to be as long as he doesn’t send my buddies to die for raytheon’s stock price
jc, the problem is the NeoCons and the deep state actors pulling the stings of Biden Inc. do not have any stakes in the game. They would think nothing of sending your buddies and all the young men out in fly over county into the barrel of a nuclear gun without a thought. We long lost temperence in the use of military force when the age of politicans like, Dole, McCain, Nixon, JFK, and others passed. Because they at least knew what it was like to stand in harms way and knew some of the ramifications of their actions.
At the risk of interrupting the political discourse, I just want to say that the Delta 88 in the photos is one beautiful car. I’m sorry the pictures are 10 years old, I’d love to think that it is sitting there for sale on that lot, in that condition, today. It is simply stunning.
In 1984, the year I graduated high school, my dad’s half brother died. 18 years earlier, my parents had moved the family to Washington state from Kansas but had dragged us all back to see our relatives, most of whom I didn’t know since I was a newborn when we left, every four years like clockwork. Of course we drove.
Our 1980 trip had been made in a 1971 Delta 88 sedan. It was a great car but since it was getting long in the tooth by 1984, my dad had purchased a used 1980 Delta 88 2 door – which to my eye is quite similar to the one in the photo – for the 1984 trip. Of course it didn’t run correctly and needed some carb work, but that was OK because my dad could fix anything and there were months before the planned trip anyhow.
My Uncle’s death changed the time table and since he needed to go right away, my took the 1980 Delta 88 in to town and came home with a brand new 1984 Cutlass Supreme. Since it would be just he and my mom making the trip, I guess my dad felt it was OK to downsize out of the 88s into something a little more efficient. It was a lovely car in its own right and the last one he ever bought.
I am about the same age my dad was when he bought the Cutlass and I think often that if I were in the same place in life, my youngest about to graduate and no longer in need of a van to tote everyone around, I too would be looking for my Oldsmobile. I say Olds because I am not a “Cadillac person.” I am not old enough for a Buick but too curmudgeonly for a Pontiac, and I aspire to more than just a run-of-the mill Chevrolet. No, an Olds would hit the just the spot right about now, I think. It’s a pity they are gone and seeing this one reminds me of what we have lost. I imagine it does that to others too, hence the politics…
Some men are Baptists, others Catholics…!