<I>TOP 5</i> WORST DECISIONS BY FORMER GM CEO RICK WAGONER

Previous government involvement in the U.S. auto industry came from a quote by the Secretary of Defense in the 50s, Charles Wilson. True enough, Wilson was the former head honcho of General Motors when he suggested that, "for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa".

Earlier this week, U.S. government involvement in the domestic auto industry reached a new level when, as a 'preexisting condition' for more loans, the Obama administration firmly suggested that long-time GM boss Rick Wagoner ought to step down and allow Fritz Henderson to lead the company in a new direction. In all honesty, under Wagoner, much was done for the good of General Motors. However, the negative picture that has been portrayed by the media of GM's current state is as serious as reality. And the negative picture was painted while Wagoner was in power. Ignore or accept the "outside forces" theory - Richard Wagoner was in charge during GM's greatest downfall.

What happened? Here are The Good Car Guy's Top 5 Worst Rick Wagoner Decisions As CEO. I could give the whole, "This isn't a personal criticism" rant but that wouldn't be true. Let it also be made clear that Wagoner's background at Duke and Harvard and his rapid growth through what was very much a GM powersharing scheme should prove his merit. Wagoner is probably a really nice guy who comes across as vapid but could likely talk business rings around your brain. Nonetheless, he didn't do enough. That's on him.... and a bunch of other people.

#5 - SLOW ACTION ON CARS: In 2002, GM saw 90% of its profits stem from pickups and SUVs. The failure of Rick Wagoner to see that a continued emphasis on two particular segments could be disastrous is unforgivable. Yes, The Good Car Guy has made a case for keeping GMC despite its truck/SUV exclusivity is based on historical and current sales. Yes, GM's main market (America) was scooping up Escalades, TrailBlazers, and Silverados at a furious pace in 2002. Yes, it was hard to reject black ink in favour of a car lineup that wasn't making enough money. But a little attention to the future would have been nice. Whoops.

#4 - PROFIT, NOT PRODUCT: At the same time we condemn General Motors for allowing Toyota to take over the global sales crown for the first time ever, GM should've known that it needed to be smaller and better; not bigger and decent. Admittedly, we're starting to see the fruits of product-driven exercises now. Vehicles like the Buick Enclave, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Volt, and Chevrolet Spark are or should be more than just class-competitive - they're leaders. Unfortunately, Wagoner doesn't get credit for that because he hired the not-at-all-camera-shy Bob Lutz to lead product development. Lutz gets credit for good cars; Wagoner receives blame for being a financial whiz kid who should have known better but continued with badge-engineering, marketing-led decisions, and the overarching theory that says, "If we lose $300 per car, we just need to build more of them to start making money". Un petite faux pas.

#3 - LOST $82B IN 4 YEARS: Why is big business, and small business for that matter, so willing to use the word "lost" when referring to financial disasters? It's kind of like a mother in a shopping mall trying to blame her 3-year old for disappearing when it was the mother's sole responsibility to keep the child found. Rick Wagoner and General Motors didn't accidentally find themselves $82,000,000,000 short in just four years. They squandered opportunities and were absolutely roasted by a bad marketplace because they were stretched thin even in good conditions. A small snafu, gentlemen.

#2 - LONG-TERM HYBRID IGNORANCE: Although recognizing the murder of the GM EV1 for what it was - "the worst decision" of his tenure - assuming hybrid technology was too niche; too expensive; and too Toyota was hugely disastrous. With GM's global engineering capability, Chevrolet could have been marketing a Volt 10 years earlier. So suggested GM R&D boss Larry Burns. Even without something as wildly impressive as the Volt, GM needed to accept financial losses like Toyota and Honda did to further its "green" claims. Instead, hybrids were a long time coming and, when they did arrive, presented themselves as Saturns and gigantic SUVs. Oops.

#1 - PONTIAC AZTEK: Financially, the Aztek was a bomb. So while you may look back on it as a joke, the Aztek was symbolic of plenty that was going wrong with General Motors at the time. GM needed to sell 30,000 a year to break even. In its best year, Pontiac didn't sell 28,000. Not only that, but GM forecast sales of 75,000 per year. I realize Rick Wagoner has people to tell him these things and didn't come up with the design or engineering or projected sales figures, but anybody in his or her right mind could see that one of the ugliest cars of all time was not going to sell at the desired rate. Wagoner either had an ABORT button and didn't use it or needed to buy himself an ABORT button and didn't. My bad.