LOL @ "18 models". It's true, but it sounds more impressive than it is... how many of those 18 are the same car just badge-engineered? 
All in all, not a bad idea, though. A company needs to respond to some of those negative myths if it wants to dispel them. 
Yeah but if you want to dispel them you need to actually adress them.
GM can’t make money selling cars
FactLarger vehicles traditionally meant larger profits, which is why almost every carmaker –- domestic and import -– rapidly expanded production of trucks, SUVs and luxury vehicles over the past decade.
Well before the recent dive in truck sales, GM was moving to increase the profitability of its cars and crossovers.
This starts with stronger products. Recent entries like the Cadillac CTS, Chevy Malibu and Buick Enclave have won praise from the press and public. Customers are willing to pay more for them, and they are selling strongly, even in a very weak market.
Chevy’s next generation small car, the Cruze, should further strengthen GM’s presence in that important segment.
GM is also significantly reducing its cost of doing business in the U.S. and we recently announced further structural cost reductions of $5-6 billion.
GM also transitioned, over the past decade, to a global business model. This spreads development costs over a larger volume, and helps GM introduce new products like the Chevy Cruze to more markets more quickly.
Finally, although we expect the truck market to be smaller in the future, people will still need trucks. GM intends to defend its truck leadership by making sure we have the best — and most fuel-efficient — trucks available.
So where does this show profitability in cars? Sales numbers don't (as GM has proven time and time agin) = making MONEY or profit. The myth isn't GM can't sell any cars. The sell millions. But selling millions of cars and losing 2K a car isn't making money.
My favotite one is this one:
GM’s biggest problem in North America is its union contracts
FactThere is no question that the growth of imports, and of non-unionized U.S. factories owned by overseas competitors, posed a tough challenge for GM and its unions. The only realistic solution was to do what we did — negotiate agreements that narrow this gap.
The most recent GM-UAW agreement, signed in 2007, helps close fundamental competitive gaps with our import competitors, and we anticipate significant savings as we implement the key provisions of the agreement between now and 2010.
GM’s unionized North American factories compete with the best in terms of quality and productivity.
We are confident that a collaborative relationship with our unions continues to be in everyone’s best interest.
So if the Union contact ISN"T the biggest problem then what is?
I love how they say this "GM’s unionized North American factories compete with the best in terms of quality and productivity." but ignore the fact that the union wage costs and benifits in particular continue to (even with their new UWA contact (which is not morrored by CWA) still leavs a signicficant cost gap.
