Efforts to revitalize the domestic auto industry present all manner of challenges to the executives and engineers who’ve bravely accepted the task, some that are real and immediate (like the recent decision to end or curtail auto leasing programs), and some that are more existential or philosophical (like Chrysler’s move toward Nissan on passenger car development, which would indicate a fundamental organizational shift away from manufacturing and toward consumer product marketing.)

People love to comment and evaluate these companies, probably because they love cars, but that doesn’t make their analyses insightful. This week, a Wall Street Journal columnist praised Ford because he believes their new vehicle lineup is promising (he liked a car he saw parked in Paris), but called for GM CEO Rick Waggoner’s firing because it’s direction is less clear.

Now, to be fair to that columnist, none of these companies looks very good in the news pages. In the past two weeks both GM and Ford posted quarterly losses in the multi-billions of dollars, and Cerberus Capital (which privatized Chrysler last year) is reportedly having trouble locating new sources of cash.

Around here, though, we have a different perspective. It isn’t that Chrysler, Ford, or GM deserve more time to get things right, but an understanding to manufacture something, and manufacture it right, one has to account for more than just a nice looking product parked on the curb.

Perhaps Chrysler is making the right decision, one that’s balanced by their previous moves to lease out manufacturing space.

As for Ford, in terms of “auto manufacturing” it’s still making up its mind. It won’t be casting metal, we know, and now even getting out of that business is going to be more costly. The Cleveland Casting Plant was set to close in 2009, which was postponed ‘til 2010 as an incentive to the United Autoworkers union. Now, Ford has to pay another $1.4 million just to shut down the plant. If Ford had decided to stay in the business of casting engine blocks, that money might have gone into the cupola updates that were already approved and permitted. (Regulators in Ohio didn’t seem too anxious to have Ford casting metal there, but couldn’t let them stop without making one last grab for its cash. Who can blame Ford for seeming confused?)

Of these three companies, only GM is making a wholehearted commitment to manufacturing cars and trucks, including metalcasting. It’s $200-million investment in new casting technologies at Bedford, IN, Defiance, OH, Saginaw, MI, is a fraction of its current losses, and so get very little credit from the showroom-focused analysts. But, that commitment reveals an understanding of what it takes to be “in” the business of auto manufacturing. And that makes GM much more attractive.