Can you tell someone’s political stripes from the cars over which they gush?

I’m not talking about SUVs. Even though they’ve become so politically incorrect, especially after Arianna Huffington tied them to American imperialist urges Salon, many people who consider themselves Green justify — or don’t even try to — driving them (although I had to give Huffington’s thesis a second glance when I saw the pitiful stories profiling Hummer owners’ — mostly with cowboy hats, if I remember correctly — chauvinistic hauteur about driving the vehicle in which the U.S. forces were tearing across the sands toward Baghdad…). //www.autointell.net/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/chrysler/chrysler-300c/chrysler300c-icon-02-25.jpg' cannot be displayed]

But to gush over this, more Cadillac than Cadillac, as Mickey Kaus does here Slate, surely shows one’s true stripes. They even boast that it has rear-wheel drive. Kaus (when did he add gearheading to his political commentator resumé?) wrote this column last month touting the superior performance of rear-wheel drive, which seems almost entirely based on how a car feels when you muscle it through a power turn too fast and whether it is better to lose control front-first or rear-first. Would a neo-con, however, be troubled by the fact that we’re talking here about a Chrysler? You know, controlled by those antiwar Germans at Daimler? Coming full circle, Kaus’ RWD column suggests that the SUV boom has been due to the fact that they are RWD. By the way, some people (31 at last count) are so incensed about Kaus’ automotive writing they’ve mounted an online petition to shut him up.