I hadn't seen the advert in which Chris the customer says he bought a Ford because they hadn't been bailed out, but TTAC has the youtube in their article Ford Takes the Gloves Off About the Bailouts:

Answering a reporter’s question, “Was buying American important to you?” Chris came up with something that advertising copy writers dream of writing.

He took that softball question (Chris’ F-150 was parked next to the [dais] at the press conference. About 94% of full size pickup buyers buy American brands.) and hit it out of the park:

    "I wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy it from a manufacturer that stands on their own, win lose or draw. That’s what America’s about, it’s taking the chance to succeed and understanding that when you fail you’ve got to pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me."

It seems to me that this is about as blunt as Ford has been on the topic of their domestic competitors’ bailouts and that it is the first time Ford has explicitly used GM and Chrysler’s bailouts as a marketing tactic.

Commenters about fell over themselves to remind us that Ford has been as willing as any other manufacturer to suck at the public teat, but Robert.Walter made the best case:

I recall Mr. Mulally flying down to D.C. in the first wave, “in support” of GM and CC. At that time, he was afraid that if either of them failed, they would drag-down the supply base, shut-down Ford, and blow-up his ability to service his recently borrowed 23G USD loan.

I recall him then driving down, in a Escape Hybrid, in the 2nd wave, after corporate jets were out, to “show more support” and to request that D.C. reserve some cash for Ford “just in case” (somebody can look up the figure, but I think it was 7G USD).

Without D.C. acting as the lender of last resort to GM and CC (and these loans being securitized with stock and warrents in the reconstituted companies), and without the ability for these companies to go thru sequential (not simultaneous) orderly bankruptcies and not shutting down the supply base, Ford would have been needing that “just in case” money due to the collaterial damage being caused by the collapses of GM and/or CC..

Further, I seem to recall FMCC making liberal use of the Credit Lending Facility and the eco retooling loans used by other OEMs.

TTAC follows up with two more looks:

Ford Running For The Tea Party?

Fox likes it especially well. "It’s almost like a tea party ideology,“ praised anchor woman Megyn Kelly the ad that had originally be made for internal consumption at Ford and only recently hit the airwaves.

Kelly and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, talking head on Megyn’s segment,  strongly endorsed the purchase of Ford cars. “My next car, I promise you, will be a Ford,” said Moore.

I can see where this approach would appeal to the patriotism and politics of the sort of people that still have money to spend and would be choosing between Ford and another US maker - my brothers and sisters are that sort of people.

Ford’s “Bailout Guy” Fires Back

In another video, the guy claims he is no actor, and those are his real feelings. In the comments, Mullholland says:

As an advertising professional who has worked in the car business for more than 30 years, I can assure everyone that EVERY detail of EVERY commercial is staged and cast and directed and edited. ... I do agree with one thing the man claims, after listening to his phrasing and language in this “home made” video: He is no actor but he certainly is a tool.

Meanwhile, Fast Company has two fanciful articles on EVs today:

Japanese Tech Could Allow Electric Vehicles To Drive Unlimited Distances

It would be much better either if the car could go longer without needing to stop, or if it could somehow be recharged mid-flight, like a long-haul military plane.  And, in fact, the second possibility may not be as fanciful as you might think.

Researchers at Toyota Central R&D Labs and Toyohashi University of Technology have come up with what they think is the world’s first mid-drive charging system, based on a similar mechanism that allows trains to travel under overhead wires.

Under the still-experimental system, electrified metal plates are buried under roads, which “up-convert” energy via a radio frequency to a steel belt inside a car’s tires, as well as to a plate sitting above the tire.

Although testing of the system has only involved low voltages so far, the researchers say the system could allow to electric cars to be far lighter than they are today. The electric cars would need smaller battery packs, as they would only need to to get and from the electrified highways.

Of course that would involve spending money on infrastructure.

German Scientists Plan to Halve The Cost Of Electric Vehicles

German engineers are a pretty confident bunch, but then they have a right to be. Europe's manufacturing giant weathered the recession with minimal layoffs and its economy is set to grow about 3% this year. German firms are staring at an enviable backlog of orders for cars, machinery, and other precision goods. Here in the U.S., well, it's a different story.

So when a group at Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology says the costs of building electric vehicle (EV) power trains and batteries could be halved by 2018, perhaps we should listen. Self-promoting as it sounds for German industry, the country is throwing big money behind the boast. The country's $273 million Competence E project will bring together 250 scientists from 25 institutes to commercialize innovations from research, delivering the missing link between government, academia, and industry for commercialization of EV technology. The project (slated to run at least through 2018) is a publicly funded research effort similar to particle accelerators and clean-room laboratories, only dedicated to building the manufacturing foundation for EVs.

My only question is half of what? German cars are solid, but aren't known for being inexpensive.