Can see the point here . . . but it bears repeating that the GM assembly plant in Janesville was where they built Chevy Suburbans; keeping it open through a recession where consumers had all but abandoned purchasing large SUVs, would have meant re-tooling the entire plant to produce some other vehicle (like a small car) that would have had greater sales potential, and given that the costs can run into the millions for an initiative of that sort, GM was on no position financially to do that. The Kenosha engine plant that Chrysler shuttered---well yeah, that was a cost-cutting/outsourcing initiative that coulda-shoulda been resisted a little harder, but both GM's and Chrysler's cash burn rates were so astronomical in the weeks leading into the bailout that both companies would have needed to make enormous cost reductions (which they did) in lieu of a much-bigger rescue package. Remember, they both had to shutter hundreds of dealerships, too---not because they were outsourcing jobs, but because no one was buying cars in the winter in 2008-9, they just couldn't afford to keep them all open.
Yeah, it was painful, but bottom line, it worked. Both companies were saved, and both companies have enjoyed a resurgence in sales and a return to (tentative) profitability. The administration deserves its fair share of blame for other recession-fighting measures that didn't accomplish much (e.g., mortgage relief), but its rescue of the automakers was arguably its single most significant domestic policy achievement to date. Yes, the contraction of the auto industry hurt places like southeastern Wisconsin---but on the other hand, when you have a Teabilly governor who turned down stimulus money, which could have brought back some lost manufacturing jobs, just in order to score political points, blame him, not the President. Also too (ahem), that region's representative in the Congress, for not lobbying more aggressively for more stimulus for his constituents.
---Vitelius