The number one single today in 1960:
The number one British album today in 1966 was the Rolling Stones’ “Aftermath”:
No comments on Presty the DJ for April 30
-
-
Rich Galen:
The Lad (@ReedGalen) called the other day and we discussed whether the 20-person Democratic primary will be decided by those who want ideological purity (read, “Socialism”), or by those who want to beat Donald Trump.
“It is unlikely that a Socialist Dem can beat Donald,” Reed said.
As the Washington Post’s senior correspondent Dan Balz and polling director Scott Clement more elegantly put it:
“At least 20 contenders are courting a Democratic electorate closely divided over whether to nominate someone who can energize the party’s core constituencies or win over political independents.”
That statement was part of a review of a poll released Sunday showing, as nearly every other poll has shown, that at this stage it is a two-person race between former VP Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders. In this poll, respondents were not read a list of candidates to choose from, but rather they were asked as an open-ended question, who they supported.
In that format, 54 percent said they had no preference. Of those who did show a preference Biden as first with 13 percent with Sanders right behind at nine percent. Pete Buttigieg was third at 5, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren tied at 4, and Beto O’Rourke who, at three percent, was the only other candidate above one percent.
Central to our discussion was the observation that
“Asked to choose which is more important, 48 percent say they prefer a candidate who is best positioned to energize the Democratic base, while 44 percent prefer a candidate who can best win over independent voters.”
I assume “independent voters” represent those persuadable, but non-aligned voters who might got to Trump based upon immigration and the economy among other issues.
Rarely will someone answer a poll saying they would rather lose and remain faithful to their ideology. Far more often they say, “If we’re true to our ideology, we will energize enough like-minded people to win.”
Most often this is stated in the reverse, after a loss: “If more candidates that delivered a more pure message, they would have won.” That is not often true, but it has been a powerful fund raising message over the past 40 years.
In addition to guiding their messaging into the appropriate, in the current vernacular, “lane,” Democratic candidates are like the starters in the Olympic Marathon final. In 2016, 155 runners started the race (140 finished) and each was elbowing the guy next to him to try to get, and maintain, an edge.
Biden left the starting gate talking about Trump. Specifically talking about Trump’s reaction to the White Supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville. He has clearly set himself up as the person who can win in November 2020.
Sanders has continued to talk about the long-held and well-developed positions that credit his self-description as a “Democratic-Socialist.”
The Beto O’Rourke/Pete Buttigieg sub-contest is currently heading in Mayor Pete’s direction. O’Rourke hasn’t re-established the vibe that followed his exciting, but unsuccessful, race for U.S. Senate in Texas against Ted Cruz last year. Mayor Pete showed up about a month ago and has raised eyebrows (in a good way) every day since. As he said last week, “I think I’ve gone from being viewed as adorable six weeks ago to now plausible.”
The other head-to-head sub-contest appears to be between California’s Kamala Harris and Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren. To eye, Harris appears to be happy to run (continuing the marathon metaphor) just off the leaders’ shoulders for now. Warren keeps trying to elbow her way to the front as if she fears she will get lost in the mob if she doesn’t exhibit more energy night in, and night out than everyone else.
There is a poll released almost every day and the top six or seven will bounce up and down, but the remaining 12 or 13 are going to have to grit their teeth and make a move or voters will just forget them.
Biden, who has only been in the race for a couple of days, has claimed the “I can beat Trump” jersey. Sanders is holding up the Socialism for Everyone banner.
We’ll see what Democratic voters are looking for.
-
ObamaCare is finally popular with the American people according to a variety of polls, and it’s instructive to understand why. The doing is Donald Trump’s and the Republicans’, and not in a way that made ObamaCare a sensible program.
Thanks to their effective repeal of the individual mandate, nobody is forced any longer to buy ObamaCare or pay a tax penalty. ObamaCare’s user cohort now consists almost entirely of willing “buyers” who receive their coverage entirely or largely at taxpayer expense. It also consists of certain users who take advantage of the coverage for pre-existing conditions and stop paying once their condition has been treated.
So why is ObamaCare growing in popularity with the 94% of Americans who don’t use it? Because it’s there if they need it.
In every larger aim, the Affordable Care Act has predictably failed. It was supposed to ramrod efficiency through the health-care marketplace. Instead, it has become just another inefficient program bringing subsidized medicine to one more arbitrarily defined subset of the population.
Donald Trump listens to his briefings, apparently, because he cut to the heart of the issue with a recent tweet pointing out that, for most people, ObamaCare was not “useful.” He’s right. For a family of four not benefiting from a subsidy, notes insurance industry veteran Bob Laszewski, a policy can cost $15,000 with a $7,000 deductible. In other words, “they have to pay $22,000 before they get anything.”
Alas, the idea of sweeping health-care reform seems to have gone out with the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Two obstacles stand in the way. Nothing says “I care” like promoting more health-care spending, so U.S. politicians are addicted to dishing out incentives for Americans to consume medical attention whether or not it does them any good.
Secondly, how to climb down from any existing set of subsidies without provoking some vital bloc of voters has proved the unsolvable equation of America’s gridlocked politics. Notice that even the GOP’s “repeal and replace” campaign devolved into trying to repeal the funding for ObamaCare (e.g., the media-device tax) without repealing the benefits.
If you depend on government-provided health care, the upshot is inevitable: longer waiting lists, rising copays and steeper deductibles as Washington struggles to pay for the medical procedures it has promised you regardless of whether these procedures leave you better off.
Should we abandon hope? No. The saving grace of our funky system is the giant tax incentive it gives employers to preserve profits by figuring out which medical treatments actually keep their employees healthy and which don’t. This shouldn’t be corporate America’s job, but it is. It’s no joke to say many U.S. businesses have more to gain from controlling health-care costs than they do from running their own operations better.
-
Today in 1976, after a concert in Memphis, Bruce Springsteen scaled the walls of Graceland … where he was arrested by a security guard.
Today in 2003, a $5 million lawsuit filed by a personal injury lawyer against John Fogerty was dismissed.
The lawyer claimed he suffered hearing loss at a 1997 Fogerty concert.
The judge ruled the lawyer assumed the risk of hearing loss by attending the concert. The lawyer replied, “What?”
-
-
Erick Erickson ignited a religious controversy when he Tweeted this about Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg:
I mean if Buttigieg thinks evangelicals should be supporting him instead of Trump, he fundamentally does not understand the roots of Christianity. But then he is an Episcopalian, so he might not actually understand Christianity more than superficially.
As you can imagine, that got Episcopalians rather upset, as well as liberals. (Do I repeat myself? I reserve the right to return to that thought.)
Erickson had more to say about Buttigieg:
Pete Buttigieg keeps trying to play a Christian on television and it goes badly for him again.
Buttigieg recently said of Donald Trump, “It is hard to look at his actions and believe they are the actions of somebody who believes in God.” On Meet the Press [April 14], Chuck Todd asked Buttigieg about that.
Buttigieg said he thought evangelicals backing President Trump were hypocritical because when he goes to church he hears about taking care of widows, the poor, and refugees, but Trump does not do that. Buttigieg went on to draw a distinction. In his professional conduct, Trump does not take care of widows and refugees as scripture commands and Buttigieg is right on this. Then Buttigieg continues that in Trump’s personal life as well he falls short of Christian behavior (he is right on that part too, by the way, but then we are all sinners). You can see the full, unedited exchange here.
Interestingly, Buttigieg goes on to note that evangelicals are too focused on sexual ethics these days. He seems to be arguing that they need to drop that aspect of their faith, as he has. Then comes the pivot exposing Buttigieg’s own hypocrisy.
Buttigieg thinks the President is not really behaving as one who believes in God because, as President, Donald Trump is not taking care of the widows, the orphans, the poor, and the refugees. Chuck Todd asks Buttigieg about his position on abortion and Buttigieg’s response is that abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate morality. …
This is why progressive Christianity is so corrupt and flawed. As much as Buttigieg makes a valid critique on the President’s behavior and evangelicals excusing that behavior, Buttigieg wants to reject the inconvenient parts of faith he does not like. He is a gay man who got married; he does not think homosexuality is a sin despite express statements in scripture, and he thinks abortion is a moral issue and we cannot legislate our morality. Buttigieg wants to use the social obligations as Christians against the President, but wants to avoid any implication on the personal obligations of Christians in terms of clear Biblical sexual ethics and how we are to live our lives applying our faith even for “the least of these.”
He wants to have it both ways and in reality is showing he is no better a Christian than Donald Trump. What is particularly damning here is that Buttigieg claims to be governed by some moral code and he claims he will lead as a more moral President than Trump. At the same time, he claims we cannot do exactly what he is proposing.
Everyone has a moral code and we all conduct our actions by our moral code. Buttigieg just wants a pass on his moral code, which is all about not taking inconvenient stands on parts of scripture that might make his life a bit uncomfortable. He will wield it against the President and abdicate when it comes to himself.
Frankly, Buttigieg makes a valid criticism of evangelicals who give the President a pass on his bad behavior. It actually is a valid criticism. There are too many evangelicals unwilling to call the President to account for his failures to repent, his doubling down on bad behavior, etc.
Buttigieg, however, is not making the point that Christians should vote for Democrats. He is making the case that they should stay home. Therein lies the rub. He does not think anyone should legislate their morality, so why should anyone vote their morality?
Ultimately, however, Christians can be Americans and Christians. They must put their faith first, which is something Buttigieg himself is unwilling to do except when it is convenient. Given the choices of a bunch of terribly flawed candidates, it really is understandable that Christians are willing to side with the one who will protect their right to exercise their religion in their daily lives rather than the ones who offer platitudes with persecution.
Lastly, note how quickly Buttigieg dismisses the science. He knows he cannot argue on that point so he refuses to even accept it as part of the debate. That is what trips him up. The science amplifies the moral case against Buttigieg’s position. Undoubtedly, however, Buttigieg will make the moral case for accepting transgenderism and demand we legislate on it. It’s just the children he is okay discarding. The same God that commands we take care of the widows, the poor, and the refugees, commands us to take care of children too.
About all that, Ed Kilgore wrote:It’s hardly news that a lot of conservative Evangelical leaders sneer contemptuously at anyone practicing any other form of Christianity as inauthentically Christian. But they are usually a bit circumspect about presuming to judge the faith of other believers in a public way.
Not the famously voluble and extremely self-confident conservative commentator Erick Erickson. I once dubbed him Pope Erick for his presumption in denying that any true Christian could possibly fail to understand that homosexuality is condemned for all eternity. So it’s no surprise that Erickson is now taking up the cudgel against Pete Buttigieg for being outspokenly gay and Christian. …
Thus Erickson dismisses a Christian tradition dating back to the 16th century, and in its apostolic succession and creeds, much longer than that. But it’s part and parcel of an extended temper tantrum that Erickson and his colleagues at the Resurgent have been pitching over the ignominy of Buttigieg calling himself Christian. …
To be clear here, Erickson is not simply asserting that he believes Buttigieg’s interpretation of Christianity is in error (though as the tragedy of church history illustrates, this kind of sectarian disputation often involves un-Christian attitudes), but is judging Buttigieg’s faith (hence the headline “Pete Buttigieg Shows Why Progressive Christianity Is a Hypocritical Farce”) as inauthentic on grounds that it makes no sense from the perspective of his own sectarian biblical-literalist viewpoint. Erkickson believes it’s clear that Christianity is incompatible with homosexuality and legalized abortion. Millions of people who go to Christian churches regularly and pray and try to follow Christ don’t agree. Yet he dares demean their faith as a “farce.”
I occasionally succumb to the temptation to turn these accusations around 180 degrees:
Whatever else you want to say about the Christian Right, many of its leaders are definitely very secular. Their idea of a “Christian Culture” appears based less on the Bible than on the way things used to be in the United States of America the day before yesterday, before uppity minorities and women and unions and “losers” spoiled the capitalist patriarchal paradise God set up as the model of human behavior via the Founders. Pouring holy water over this very worldly vision or fishing around in the Bible for sanctions for it doesn’t make it any less secular. So please, Pope Erick, leave Jesus Christ out of this and just admit you think it’d be a more pleasant world without gay people.
But while my suspicions about the worldliness of the Christian right generally may be accurate, I recant any efforts to deny the authenticity of any individual’s faith. I used to have some rural relatives who refused to acknowledge daylight savings time because standard time was “God’s time.” That’s precisely the kind of confusion between religion and secular traditionalism that I think many conservative Evangelicals tend to nourish. But I don’t doubt my country cousins’ deeply felt desire to do God’s will. So I won’t try to peer into Erick Erickson’s soul and judge his faith. It’s very unlikely he’d ever reciprocate that token of respect and humility. That’s just a cross that progressive Christians must bear.
Carol Kuruvilla of the Huffington Post (which apparently reports about religion — who knew?) adds:
The ease and openness with which Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg talks about his religious beliefs appears to be causing consternation among some conservative Christians.
Evangelical Christians have long seen themselves as the standard-bearers for faith and family values in American politics. Buttigieg, a gay Christian, is directly challenging that, driving some evangelical leaders to try to paint his faith as an inauthentic expression of Christianity.
Franklin Graham, son of the famed evangelist Billy Graham and a supporter of President Donald Trump, criticized the faith of the South Bend, Indiana, mayor ― and progressive Christianity as a whole ― on Twitter and Facebook Thursday.
“We don’t define sin, God does in His Word,” tweeted Graham, who has long maintained that queer love is a sin. “Using new terms like ‘Progressive Christianity’ & ‘Christian Left’ may sound appealing, but God’s laws don’t change. I believe what the Bible says is truth.”
I’m sure regular readers will be shocked — shocked! — to find out that everyone is wrong. I read Erickson as sarcastically saying that Episcopalians are not Christians. (Perhaps Erickson was thinking of bishop-turned-heretic John Spong, but if he wanted to refer to Spong he should have referred to Spong.)
Kilgore and Kuruvilla, and everyone else they quote approvingly, and for that matter Erickson are all wrong for trying to push only (their favored) part of Christianity. Being Christian fundamentally means you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected into Heaven three days after his death by crucifixion.
That’s not it, though. Jesus Christ’s second commandment, remember, is to love your neighbor. That means the individual Christian should work to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and so on. Not government, not churches, not any other group — you as a Christian. Christians are also expected to attempt to avoid sin (“Go and sin no more“) and conduct themselves appropriately. Buttigieg seems to not respect the teachings of the Bible on sexual morality, and I suppose that’s up to him and God. It is not up to him, however, to say that others who are Christians are wrong about parts of the Bible and traditional Christian teaching that Buttigieg appears to not agree with or like.
The concept of cafeteria Christianity is not unusual, but that doesn’t make it correct Christianity. Everett Piper:
South Bend, Indiana, mayor and 2020 presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, recently took to the national stage to attack Vice President Mike Pence and, by association, tens of millions of America’s orthodox Christians.
“My [homosexual] marriage ” said Mr. Buttigieg, “has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God If being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far above my pay grade. That’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand, that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
This is not an isolated rhetorical cheap shot. Earlier this year, Mr. Buttigieg said, “Who would think that this Uber-Evangelical Christian would go down in history as the midwife of the porn star presidency? If he were here you would think he’s a nice guy to your face, but he’s also just fanatical. How could he allow himself to become the cheerleader of the porn star presidency? Is it that he stopped believing in the scripture when he started believing in Donald Trump?”
Mr. Buttigieg’s ridicule of the vice president’s religious convictions has persisted, in spite of the fact that Mr. Pence has done nothing but show grace and respect at every turn. “I hold Mayor Buttigieg in the highest personal regard,” said Mr. Pence. “I see him as a dedicated public servant and patriot.” There is no record of Mr. Pence ever insulting Mr. Buttigieg or returning his mockery with similar derision. Mr. Pence has shown remarkable restraint and nothing but civility and a generous spirit of true tolerance.
While our vice president may find it politically imprudent to respond to such provocations, some of us see less reason to remain so circumspect. Presumptuous as it might be to offer a response on behalf of our vice president, I am going to venture a try.
Here goes
Mr. Buttigieg, has it ever occurred to you, that the “Mike Pences of the world” don’t have a problem with “who you are,” but rather we just disagree with what you do? We believe human identity is much more than the sum total of someone’s sexual inclinations. In fact, the “creator” whom you so boldly reference makes this pretty clear.
There is no place in His entire biblical narrative where He defines us by our desires. All of us, however, are known by our choices. We are made in His image, we have moral awareness and moral culpability. We can and should choose to not do some things we may be inclined to do. God help us if we don’t. One’s appetite for porn, polyamory, and any other heterosexual or homosexual act does not define you. Your decision as to whether or not you satiate such an appetite does.
You see, Mr. Mayor, this is a matter of your proclivities, not your personhood. What you don’t seem to understand is that when it comes to your personal peccadillos, most all of the “Mike Pences of the world” really don’t want to know. Your sexual appetites are your business. The thing about obedient and faithful Christians is this; we consider someone else’s private life to be just that — Private. Please stop telling us what kind of sex you like. We don’t want to know. If you want us to stay out of your bedroom, please shut the door. Stop opening it up and forcing us to applaud and celebrate.
Before I close, Mr. Buttigieg, I have to point out one more thing. Surely you are aware you just implicitly admitted you agree with all of us “Mike Pences of the world” and you, too, think sexual behavior is, indeed, a moral issue? Otherwise, why include your derogatory remarks about porn stars and those who engage in their services? Why do you disparage them? By your own logic, isn’t “your quarrel, sir, with their creator” and not them? How is it that you blame others for their sexual behavior but you hold yourself guiltless before your own sex tribunal and morality police?
Oh, I can hear your reply before you even open your mouth, Mr. Buttigieg. It is as predictable as the sunrise. “You’re missing the point” you say. “This is not about sex. It is about marriage.” Well, aside from the transparent incongruity of this claim, let’s cut to the chase and close with this: What gives you the right to redefine a sacrament of the church? You don’t get to make up your own Christianity. You also don’t get to make up your own Jesus, and in case you missed it, He is explicitly clear on His definition of marriage: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
No, our quarrel really isn’t with your creator, sir. Our quarrel is with you.
-
The number one single today in 1963 was recorded by a 15-year-old, the youngest number one singer to date:
The number one British single today in 1967 was that year’s Eurovision song contest winner:
The number one single today in 1985:
-
Regular readers know about my recent and longer-term association with the UW Marching Band, whose director, Mike Leckrone, retired after 50 years directing the band.
(About which, for a great perspective on what we learned, read this.)
Well, almost no one is irreplaceable. (ABC Radio tried to replace Paul Harvey and then gave up.) And so my alma mater reports:
It has been a full five decades since the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Mead Witter School of Music has selected a new leader of the UW Marching Band.
But after an extensive national search, they’ve found the one: Corey Pompey, who has been serving as the director of athletic bands and associate director of bands for the University of Nevada, Reno, will take the baton from legendary UW bandleader Michael Leckrone beginning this summer, becoming the school’s new director of athletic bands and associate director of bands.
“Corey Pompey is the clear choice,” said Susan Cook, director of the School of Music. “He has a deep musicianship along with an enthusiasm and energy on the podium that was infectious; he really connected with the students.”
Pompey brings a strong background in music education and extensive experience with marching bands to his new role at UW. He studied music education as an undergraduate and graduate student at the University of Alabama and earned his doctor of musical arts degree from the University of Texas-Austin, two music programs similar to UW–Madison in terms of size and scope, both with deep marching band traditions. Prior to his time at University of Nevada, Reno, Pompey served as assistant director of bands at Penn State University.
“When I think of UW, I think of a great institution of learning,” said Pompey. “The second thing I think of is its wonderful tradition of marching bands. There’s a strong legacy at UW.”
Interestingly, Pompey didn’t initially set out to become a band leader. He began his career teaching music in public schools in Pleasant Grove and Brookwood, Alabama.
“I went into music education with the intent of doing something else with my life,” Pompey said. “Then the music grabbed me. The profession found me – I didn’t find it.”
In discussing the vision he’ll bring to his new role with the UW Marching Band, Pompey emphasized the importance of collaboration, music selection and the student experience.
“It’s important to be entertaining the crowd, always,” he said. “But I also want to provide the students in the band with a great experience. I want them to learn something.”
The UW students who participated in the interview process were also impressed with Pompey. CJ Zabat, a 22-year old senior who serves as the band’s drum major, said he and his fellow band members felt an instant connection.
“He was really deliberate, knowledgeable and detail-oriented,” Zabat said. “He was aware of everyone in the room with him, and it was clear there were a lot of musical gears turning in his head.
Pompey is also mindful of the deep tradition and national profile of the program he’s inheriting from Leckrone, who has led the band since 1969. Last fall, Leckrone announced his intent to step down as director at the end of this academic year.
“I want to acknowledge how honored I am to have the opportunity to lead this program,” Pompey said. “I also want to thank Prof. Leckrone for all he’s done. I look forward to carrying on the excellence of the program.”
Pompey will officially start at UW on July 20.
The huge question, of course, is: What do Pompey’s bands look like?
This appears to be an example of “corps-style” marching, patterned after drum and bugle corps. We band alumni added an E to “corps” because there is no real marching involved here.
Band members who have been interviewed have been very positive about Pompey. That shows that it’s a new era. (When I was in high school I was never asked who I wanted to be the next band director.) Getting buy-in is important, because not getting buy-in can be disastrous, as anyone who observed from a distance former UW Band assistant director Justin Stolarik’s experience at Oklahoma University can attest.
Pompey’s music seems good, though those who marched for Leckrone would not approve of Nevada’s marching style, which is not anywhere near as distinctive as Wisconsin’s. (Leckrone inherited a band that was doing a pretty standard Big Ten style, but modified it with Stop at the Top, where there is a discernible pause between steps.) Leckrone’s bands didn’t just play older rock music, of course, but played big bands, show tunes and even classical music as well.
There is a parallel (at least in my strange mind) to politics here in a nonpartisan and non-ideological sense. A lot of political candidates talk about change in glowing terms. Well, change may be inevitable, but progress is not, and “change” and “progress” are not synonyms. People want things to be better, not merely different. And no one will complain if Pompey improves the band. But there are things — the marching style being a major one — that changing may not result in approval.
On the other hand, Pompey starts in July. Assuming similar schedules from the past, he will start with students a month later. The Nevada band might have been the band he inherited too late to do anything with marching style other than what they were already doing. It would seem difficult to adopt a brand new style of marching to upwards of 200 returning band members in just two or three weeks. (Their first home game is against Central Michigan Sept. 7.)
-
The front-engined Corvette is dead. GM head honcho Mary Barra delivered the news last week the final production C7 would be auctioned off this summer.
While the press skimmed the surface of this historic automotive event, The C7’s demise has received little in-depth coverage. Not only is this a melancholy milestone for us ‘Vette fans, but a little bit of an automotive Groundhog’s Day as well.
Case in point, take the introduction of the GM’s LS powerplant way back in 1996. It debuted in the 1997 C5 Corvette and then GM quietly phased out the Gen 1/Gen II small-block motors with little fanfare. By the time production halted, GM produced over 50 million old-school V8s, easily dwarfing the Model T, Corolla, and the VW Bug for all-time automotive sales goliath. Yet, it went out with a whimper and folks hardly noticed.Fast forward to last week’s announcement the C7 was dead, and GM seems to be taking a similar tack, quietly pulling the plug on the the last front-engined ‘Vette. Lasting just six model years, the C7 will match the C2 as one of the shortest running generations in Corvette history.It also quashes the conventional wisdom that the Corvette would be a two-platform lineup, at least for the time being. Let’s back up and review key events that led to the euthanization of the old-school Corvette.
GM invested almost two-thirds of a BILLION dollars in the expansion of Bowling Green. We were certain it was to accommodate two Corvette models. Some thought it would be a Cadillac variant or at the very least, the C7 would live on to appease traditional Corvette buyers.
Now that the C7 is dead, what’s going on in Bowling Green that required doubling the size of the factory? Is there a second model we don’t know about? In an SUV/CUV crazy market, it seems unlikely that GM would field a high-zoot sports car as the crown jewel of Cadillac. A more profitable Escalade would make sense, but a low volume sports car? Seems far-fetched at this point.
We know that high-performance engine assembly for Corvette (and now Cadillac’s Blackwing V8) has been brought in-house, and the paint shop is completely new, but what exactly will GM do to fully allocate a mega-expanded Bowling Green is up for debate. As we’ve all seen in the past few months, GM isn’t shy about shuttering plants if they aren’t running at darn near 100 percent capacity.Especially risky for Bowling Green when you’re completely rewriting the rules of the brand and the jury is still deliberating if a mid-engine car will be warmly regarded by the Corvette faithful.
We would have loved to have been a fly-on-the-wall when Corvette Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter and gang pitched GM brass on the C8 Corvette. It was probably the hardest sales job ever in the annals of automotive history. Could you imagine the following scenario? Let’s cue up the wiggly lines on the TV and go back in time…
Picture Tadge at a round table with GM brass, “Hey, we are the undisputed king of sports cars in the North American market, selling between 25 to 40,000 units annually at a huge profit to the company. What we’re proposing is completely re-writing the template of the car, with a more exotic design. Even if it means alienating our fiercely loyal customers…”As we know now, GM brass approved this strategy and we’ll have to see how it pans out at the end of the year when the C8 hits the market. If that weren’t enough change, there is most likely an electric or electric-assisted versions of the C8 waiting in the wings as well. Whether Chevrolet can maintain sales volume with a completely different car remains to be seen, which hints there could be more going on.
So if the C7 is dead, could a Corvette branded SUV be in the wings? This would make the most sense. Before you dismiss this as heresy, one only needs to look to the Porsche line-up and note its 2.5 ton Cayenne SUV accounts for the majority of Porsche sales and probably helped it survive and remain a semi-autonomous car company.
Chevrolet critics have long lobbied for a spin-off of the Corvette because they think the Bow Tie image is damaged or not cool enough to attract younger, foreign-brand leaning customers. We say Corvette and Chevrolet are intrinsically linked forever and busting them up is a long-shot, but still believe the Corvette as a multiple-platform brand has not been ruled out.
We speculated that the Camaro would replace the C7 as the front-engine, rear wheel drive “entry level” Corvette and we now feel vindicated. For decades, “the pony can’t outrun the horse” was an unwritten rule at Chevrolet. Corvette was the performance king, period. That credo was obliterated in slow-motion starting almost 10 years ago with the introduction of the Fifth Gen Camaro.
Chevy’s pony has since matched Corvette tit-for-tat with shared engines, an equally sophisticated chassis and the best tuning and refinement (thanks Al Oppenheiser) GM can bring to life. Not only has the Camaro been groomed (right before our eyes) to take the Corvette’s crown, it is one of the best performance cars on the market at any price. A fitting successor to our “old-fashioned” C7 and good news that we can all rejoice in.
I can personally attest how mystical the idea of a mid-engine Corvette has been for the last zillion years. I can remember as a kid, I’d hit the drugstore at the end of the month to see new issues of the big car magazines. Staring back at me from the news stands were headlines that barked “Secret Mid Engine Corvette Coming!”Time and space would stand still, and I would plop down, right there on the spot, and read the story, hanging on every word. The pictures of Zora Arkus-Duntov and Bill Mitchell next to advanced Corvette prototypes at GM’s Warren, Michigan Design Center were exotic and beguiling.
Bristling with the latest high technology, these future Corvettes not only captured my imagination, but an entire generation of car lovers as well. Entire forests were clearcut over the years to print the latest scuttlebutt on a car which until this coming July 18th, 2019, never materialized.
-
The Mid-Engine Corvette story is decades in the making. Photos: General Motors
You would think the announcement that the car is indeed slated for production would be heralded as the second automotive coming but sadly, that’s not reaction on the internet. Social media forums are the latrine walls of our generation and feedback on the new car has been brutal.
“Oh look, a new Fiero,” is a common, fairly kind response. Another reader posts, “If I wanted a Ferrari, I’d buy a Ferrari..” Others are more blunt in their disdain for the new car, “It looks like sh*t…”
Fair enough, but the hardpoints of a mid-engine car design are fixed and unmovable, and lend itself to look-a-like styling. Cab-forward passenger compartment, short hood, the elimination of aft stowing, and a rear bulkhead in the cabin, are just a few of the aforementioned obstacles engineers face, not to mention stylists.
Which leads us to um, the styling. Chazcron over at MidEngineCorvetteForum always has the most up to date renders.
The childlike faith that GM will not screw up America’s only sports car boggles the mind. Everyone with the remotest interest in cars should know of GM’s record of new technology — the melting aluminum engine for the Chevy Vega, the Oldsmobile diesel V-8, Computer Command Control, the V-8-6-4 … shall I go on? How about the powerhouse Corvettes that got all of 165 horsepower in 1981 and 205 horsepower in 1984?
A rear-mounted engine will be an engine that no normal person can do anything with beyond maybe checking the oil. Corvettes have always been cars their owners could work on, but apparently not anymore. Nor will a rear-engine Corvette have any room for luggage, unlike the C4 through the current C7. (So much for weekend getaways.) Nor will be the C8 be a car its drivers can shift, since they will all have automatic transmissions, a point Cruikshank ignored. (Manual transmissions require driver skill.)
No one with any sense believes GM will sell the C8 for only a little more than the C7. This car will be more expensive to build, and Government Motors already has too many vehicles that don’t make money. Nevertheless, snobs who don’t buy Corvettes now because they’re not Ferraris or Porsches won’t buy Corvettes when they are rear-engine and more expensive. So this is likely the final Corvette, because GM will not sell as many Corvettes as they think, they will lose money, and they can’t lose money.
-
Imagine having tickets to today’s 1964 NME winner’s poll concert at Wembley Empire Pool in London:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 