My, my -- how times change. For some unfathomable reason, George Soros and MoveOn did not even consider submitting this commercial for the Superbowl ad competition this year. Please watch it, and along with me, wonder why -- are their particular bones of contention becoming increasingly irrelevant to what the rest of us can see is happening?
Here is the 30-second commercial that -- despite Soros' billions -- did not run in either 2004 or in 2012:
Meanwhile, here is a commercial (with Clint Eastwood) that did run this year. It implies that, under the Obama administration, Detroit and its automobile industry are about to launch a new "second half" initiative that will put the (Democratic) team on the scoreboard once again:
Who else but the Democrats under President Obama can claim to have turned GM and Chrysler around in these trying times? (Of course, the commercial does not mention Ford, which managed to survive the recession with its own capital and negotiated union contracts, no thanks to the President.)
And who else but the Democrats under Obama would choose to make this commercial the one they decided was best to run, instead of the one George Soros handed them in 2004?
I tell you Republicans out there
: you've got to get up early to gain a march on these Democrats.
Perhaps I'm unperceptive, but the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial does not seem to be about a second term for Obama. I don't know Eastwood's political views and I doubt that most viewers would know either.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the ad seemed to be an inspirational message to have hope and work for a comeback.
(Obama is not the person that is going to inspire that comeback IMHO.)
RalphM
RalphM, Clint Eastwood himself agrees with you. President Obama's campaign, on the other hand, does not.
ReplyDeleteMy juxtaposing of the two ads was intended to poke fun at the Democrats -- that they could not re-run the first ad because it would embarrass Mr. Obama, but that they could identify with the second ad because it could be taken as an endorsement of the results of Mr. Obama's bailouts of both GM and Chrysler. In doing that, however, they would end up emphasizing how the bailouts have served mainly to keep GM and Chrysler alive, so that they could continue to pay union workers according to their elaborate contracts. But neither of those companies nor Mr. Obama has yet devised a means of going forward profitably in these recession/depression times while still adhering to those contracts.
You, seeing Clint Eastwood for what he meant to say, didn't fall for it. But Obama's campaign managers, wanting to hitch their candidate to an icon like Eastwood, did.
There is no place to hide. No one can reasonably say that the Clint Eastwood clip was not a campaign advertisement for BHO. The dastardly take-over of the two companies, Fiat-Chrysler and Government Motors resulted in the cancellation of all preferred shares of stock, thereby punishing those who had the least to do with the companies' failures. Preferred stock is that which is most frequently found in the "widows' and orphans'" portions of long-term, "ultra-secure" stocks designed to produce modest but sure dividends. One can check how many mutual funds are still in existence since the expropriation and subsequent cancellation of these shares of stock. The number of Mutual Funds have been reduced by almost 40% since the expropriation. The most innocent of the financial instruments were the ones most punished by this marxist administration.
ReplyDeleteClint Eastwood, as have I, perhaps has become a bit unclear in his thinking now, at this stage in his life. During the expropriations and subsequent delivery of the two corporations into the hands of extremely corrupt labour unions and the central government, Rowdy Yates knew that these were bad moves, and he said as much, frequently.
Forgive my long-windedness and abrasiveness. Thank you for your kind attention and time.
David Christian Newton