movieline.com— The best part came when Eastwood himself reached out to O'Reilly Factor producer Ron Mitchell to defuse the conspiracy theories, hype, conjecture, invective and the rest of it:
Feb 8, 2012View in Crawl 4
It became political the moment the federal government bailed out Chrysler.
By the way, I think it's pretty obvious that the makers of Chrysler's ad understood (and took into account) the politics of the situation. A lot of Americans hate the bailouts, and resent companies that took them. Chrysler wanted to try to get customers back, so they're trying to appeal to them using patriotism. Hence, the ad.
So, I take it that you won't do any banking with any of the large banks that took federal money. No banking with JpMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial Services, Capital One, American Express, Discover Card, Hartford, etc, etc, etc.
Not to mention the numerous insurance companies, investment companies, and mortgage companies hat you won't be doing any business with.
Such a high horse you sit upon, must make it really hard to do everyday business.
But they aren't the ones with a commercial claiming "if we can't find a way through tough times then we'll make one" or "Detroit is showing us how to get things done."
If the banks had a similar commercials making the same claims, you'd head the same complaints from the other side of the aisle claiming "the banks got things done... with taxpayer dollars!!" -- and they would be correct!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The commercial is there to spur sales in Chrysler cars. It's designed to give people a sense of confidence in America and being an American.
Sloppyjoes claimed it became political the moment federal government bailed out Chrysler. If that's the yard stick to gauge wether it's political then the same can be said about the banking, mortgage, and insurance companies regardless of wether they make a commercial to spur sales and confidence.
No, the banks just decided to start charging the very people whose money they stole (thank you, Bush) and try and charge people $5/month to have a debit card so they can USE the money the bank didn't steal.
Personally, I prefer a commercial.
/Happy Credit Union customer, no bailouts needed because greed isn't a problem here.
sloppy... let me get this right, there were a bunch of right wing attacks about the ad being politically motivated, to the point that the person in the ad, someone known to not be endorsing Obama, by his own words, who also said that the ad had no political motivation, that the intent was something along the lines of - we as a nation need to get our act together. Again, this is coming directly from Clint Eastwood, yet you still went off the rails saying that of course it is obvious what the intent was... its not what the makers of the ad, or the very, very well respected person in the ad, says it was, but it is this other thing. Its this other motivation that you have come up with yourself.
Somehow, I think I'm going to believe them, not you... unless... are you secretly Clint Eastwood?
Sloppy, you can feel it was political motivated even though Clint Eastwood clearly said that wasn't the intent of the ad nor was he endorsing president Obama. That is your right.
We have the right to clearly see that you are nothing more than a tool. That is our right.
Sloppy Joe's take is clearly that anything that inspires confidence in America, American institutions, the US economy, or buying American made products is clearly political -- this year.
When you have a President that he supports illegally funding propaganda under the table that endorses his failed/failing agenda by bribes to media personalities/reporters, well, that's just not political at all.
The ad was not pro-Obama, it was pro-America. If the commecial accidentally makes Obama look good, it was because President Obama has been pro-America. People probably wouldn't have even noticed, if the Republicans had not been behaving so anti-America about it.
Interestingly enough, so what if it was an ad for Obama? He is up for re-election, why couldn't he have an ad about that? How would something of this sort be any different than any of the super PAC ads that have been running talking about one candidate or another? Are the right wing trying to say Obama is not allowed to have commercials promoting his policies, or that other groups shouldn't be allowed to run ads promoting his policies?
Look at just about any failed, misguided Bush policy and you will find an underhanded, illegal government-paid, clandestine media propaganda program behind it.
Instead of buying ad tie, they bought, literally, reporters and media pundits, and got them to espouse Bush administration views in exchange for cold, hard cash.
That is illegal in the US, as our country did not want to go down the same road as Nazi Germany having fought it at such great costs 70 years ago.
Well, apparently, some people forget.
Ironic, considering who the Bush family was doing the banking for at the time of World War II.
You would think they would be paying more attention to what their customer was doing in the news.
If the Conservatives and Fox would just remove their Hate Obama Glasses and see the commercial as being inspirational message; just maybe they wouldn't expose themselves as not caring about this country. They are more interest keep this country and down and protecting the wealth.
The commercial isn't the issue, the issue is that we will use public funds to prop up private enterprise and even worse do it in a way that screws the private bondholders. We shouldn't have done it with the banks, we shouldn't have done it with the automakers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually, you are wrong... in this case it is all about the commercial... What you are talking about is a different issue. The right wing is trying to say this commercial is basically an ad for Obama. That is the entire point of the issue.
What I'm saying is that the commercial is just meaningless partisan bickering and the real issue at stake with it is whether we think the public treasury is for the benefit of selected companies and individuals or if we believe in equal protection under the law and no special treatment. If people think moving forward means Government giving aid to certain companies and individuals then we're in trouble and have lost our way. America is about what we can do for ourselves, not what Government will do for us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The issue is it worked and that doesn't settle well with you. You wanted the system to collapse and then you could hold up in your fortress in Alaska. Now it just exposes the fact that you are an extreme freak and would like our country to fail so that you could come out on top.
First, we don't answer the question about whether the Government is a Payday Loan Store for every down on its luck organization based on whether some of those organizations manage to re-pay their loan. We base it on whether the Constitution allows the Government to subsidize private losses and whether if it does its a good idea for us to do so.
Second, I have several hundred thousand dollars in retirement accounts and I will lose much of the value in them if the system collapses, so I'm very much vested in ensuring it doesn't. And one of the primary ways it will collapse is through too much debt as anyone who has been watching Ireland and Greece understands. If I wanted the system to collapse I'd encourage more Government intervention, because it would mean more debt to drag us under faster and more regulation to impede any free market wealth creation that might extend the viability of things.
Actually, this is brilliant, I can use football to explain the bailouts to kids!
Imagine President Obama shows up during half time at the Super Bowl with 7 points he borrowed from China and gives them to the Patriots. Is that fair to the Giants? Is that fair to the fans of the game?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Fascinating theory, but I just have one question: How do Hollywood or liberals have anything to do with this ad, and why are you against the message of unity and industriousness? Oh, I guess that was two questions.
anomaly100Feb 9, 2012
He didn't make it political, they did.
sloppyjoes7Feb 9, 2012
It became political the moment the federal government bailed out Chrysler.
By the way, I think it's pretty obvious that the makers of Chrysler's ad understood (and took into account) the politics of the situation. A lot of Americans hate the bailouts, and resent companies that took them. Chrysler wanted to try to get customers back, so they're trying to appeal to them using patriotism. Hence, the ad.
It's a rational business decision. However, personally, I will purposely avoid buying from either GM or Chrysler.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 9, 2012
So, I take it that you won't do any banking with any of the large banks that took federal money. No banking with JpMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial Services, Capital One, American Express, Discover Card, Hartford, etc, etc, etc.
Not to mention the numerous insurance companies, investment companies, and mortgage companies hat you won't be doing any business with.
Such a high horse you sit upon, must make it really hard to do everyday business.
ect5150Feb 9, 2012
But they aren't the ones with a commercial claiming "if we can't find a way through tough times then we'll make one" or "Detroit is showing us how to get things done."
If the banks had a similar commercials making the same claims, you'd head the same complaints from the other side of the aisle claiming "the banks got things done... with taxpayer dollars!!" -- and they would be correct!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 9, 2012
The commercial is there to spur sales in Chrysler cars. It's designed to give people a sense of confidence in America and being an American.
Sloppyjoes claimed it became political the moment federal government bailed out Chrysler. If that's the yard stick to gauge wether it's political then the same can be said about the banking, mortgage, and insurance companies regardless of wether they make a commercial to spur sales and confidence.
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
"If that's the yard stick to gauge wether it's political then the same can be said about the banking, mortgage, and insurance companies"
You're right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
The federal government bailed out Chrysler just over 3 decades ago.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm
Chrysler rebounded with the aid of the loan and swiftly repaid it.
mlw4428Feb 9, 2012
No, the banks just decided to start charging the very people whose money they stole (thank you, Bush) and try and charge people $5/month to have a debit card so they can USE the money the bank didn't steal.
Personally, I prefer a commercial.
/Happy Credit Union customer, no bailouts needed because greed isn't a problem here.
dividebyoFeb 10, 2012
sloppy... let me get this right, there were a bunch of right wing attacks about the ad being politically motivated, to the point that the person in the ad, someone known to not be endorsing Obama, by his own words, who also said that the ad had no political motivation, that the intent was something along the lines of - we as a nation need to get our act together. Again, this is coming directly from Clint Eastwood, yet you still went off the rails saying that of course it is obvious what the intent was... its not what the makers of the ad, or the very, very well respected person in the ad, says it was, but it is this other thing. Its this other motivation that you have come up with yourself.
Somehow, I think I'm going to believe them, not you... unless... are you secretly Clint Eastwood?
sloppyjoes7Feb 10, 2012
Me: "I think it's pretty obvious that the makers of Chrysler's ad understood (and took into account) the politics of the situation."
You: "yet you still went off the rails saying that of course it is obvious what the intent was."
I'm not the one exaggerating here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 10, 2012
Sloppy, you can feel it was political motivated even though Clint Eastwood clearly said that wasn't the intent of the ad nor was he endorsing president Obama. That is your right.
We have the right to clearly see that you are nothing more than a tool. That is our right.
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
Sloppy Joe's take is clearly that anything that inspires confidence in America, American institutions, the US economy, or buying American made products is clearly political -- this year.
When you have a President that he supports illegally funding propaganda under the table that endorses his failed/failing agenda by bribes to media personalities/reporters, well, that's just not political at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda#Government_produced_.22news.22_2
Eh?
Clearly, the man has a double standard and he just cannot see it.
langfordFeb 9, 2012
The ad was not pro-Obama, it was pro-America. If the commecial accidentally makes Obama look good, it was because President Obama has been pro-America. People probably wouldn't have even noticed, if the Republicans had not been behaving so anti-America about it.
bluenose2Feb 9, 2012
Karl Rove chasing his tail again.
nmw6Feb 9, 2012
When I saw this commercial I felt proud that america was returning to success. I didn't notice "political undertones"... then Karl Rove came along.
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
I read your post backwards and for an instant I thought, "See, even Karl Rove thinks it is not political!".
I was so wrong; predictably. LOL
People still dance to his drum?
Bah. (like you mean it, people!)
martin92003Feb 10, 2012
Way to go Clint!!! A Republican telling the hard core extremist to get your act together!!!
urdumania1Feb 9, 2012
He didn't make it political, they did.
tomt127Feb 9, 2012
I wish Clint Eastwood would run for president.
"Go ahead Iran, make my day"
wjappeFeb 10, 2012
Rove is such a sleazebag.
dividebyoFeb 10, 2012
Interestingly enough, so what if it was an ad for Obama? He is up for re-election, why couldn't he have an ad about that? How would something of this sort be any different than any of the super PAC ads that have been running talking about one candidate or another? Are the right wing trying to say Obama is not allowed to have commercials promoting his policies, or that other groups shouldn't be allowed to run ads promoting his policies?
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012
Bush practically invented the practice in the US at least in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda#Government_produced_.22news.22_2
Look at just about any failed, misguided Bush policy and you will find an underhanded, illegal government-paid, clandestine media propaganda program behind it.
Instead of buying ad tie, they bought, literally, reporters and media pundits, and got them to espouse Bush administration views in exchange for cold, hard cash.
That is illegal in the US, as our country did not want to go down the same road as Nazi Germany having fought it at such great costs 70 years ago.
Well, apparently, some people forget.
Ironic, considering who the Bush family was doing the banking for at the time of World War II.
You would think they would be paying more attention to what their customer was doing in the news.
Oh, sorry. I mean employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Union_Banking_Corporation
gbreedFeb 10, 2012
If the Conservatives and Fox would just remove their Hate Obama Glasses and see the commercial as being inspirational message; just maybe they wouldn't expose themselves as not caring about this country. They are more interest keep this country and down and protecting the wealth.
publikjohn9Feb 10, 2012
The message was loud and clear to me. It was most definitely a political thankyou.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
The commercial isn't the issue, the issue is that we will use public funds to prop up private enterprise and even worse do it in a way that screws the private bondholders. We shouldn't have done it with the banks, we shouldn't have done it with the automakers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dividebyoFeb 10, 2012
Actually, you are wrong... in this case it is all about the commercial... What you are talking about is a different issue. The right wing is trying to say this commercial is basically an ad for Obama. That is the entire point of the issue.
barackalypseFeb 10, 2012
What I'm saying is that the commercial is just meaningless partisan bickering and the real issue at stake with it is whether we think the public treasury is for the benefit of selected companies and individuals or if we believe in equal protection under the law and no special treatment. If people think moving forward means Government giving aid to certain companies and individuals then we're in trouble and have lost our way. America is about what we can do for ourselves, not what Government will do for us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydFeb 10, 2012
The issue is it worked and that doesn't settle well with you. You wanted the system to collapse and then you could hold up in your fortress in Alaska. Now it just exposes the fact that you are an extreme freak and would like our country to fail so that you could come out on top.
Best laid plans of libertarians and men.
barackalypseFeb 10, 2012
First, we don't answer the question about whether the Government is a Payday Loan Store for every down on its luck organization based on whether some of those organizations manage to re-pay their loan. We base it on whether the Constitution allows the Government to subsidize private losses and whether if it does its a good idea for us to do so.
Second, I have several hundred thousand dollars in retirement accounts and I will lose much of the value in them if the system collapses, so I'm very much vested in ensuring it doesn't. And one of the primary ways it will collapse is through too much debt as anyone who has been watching Ireland and Greece understands. If I wanted the system to collapse I'd encourage more Government intervention, because it would mean more debt to drag us under faster and more regulation to impede any free market wealth creation that might extend the viability of things.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Actually, this is brilliant, I can use football to explain the bailouts to kids!
Imagine President Obama shows up during half time at the Super Bowl with 7 points he borrowed from China and gives them to the Patriots. Is that fair to the Giants? Is that fair to the fans of the game?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 9, 2012
At least you seem to *realize* that your "explanation" is so laughably simplistic that it's only useful for talking to children.
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
dont forget K.I.S.S.
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2012
hey clint, i got a thompson complete w/ the drum if you need to shoot some pesky reporters.
freedom74Feb 9, 2012
f**king liberal hollywood bulls**t
The_SovereignFeb 9, 2012
Fascinating theory, but I just have one question: How do Hollywood or liberals have anything to do with this ad, and why are you against the message of unity and industriousness? Oh, I guess that was two questions.
freedom74Feb 10, 2012
sarcasm doesnt translate well online...
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
/s
freedom74Feb 10, 2012
my bad