I think it's more coincidence and circumstance rather than collusion and coercion. Both have a similar message, so, it's not really all that strange that the language would cross paths at points. I think bnb nailed it, this is kind of a rorschach test. People will see in this what they want to see.
I don't think anyboyd think's it's collusion, but the auto bailout & rehab is one of Obama's major policy successes, in a key state. And even worse, it's something that Romney openly opposed (despite the fact that the Auto industry was what put food on the table while he was growing up given that his dad was CEO & Chairman of American Motors...) in order to score cheap political points. Anytime it's brought up, especially in that area, it's a big win for Obama, and a nutpunch for "Let Detroit go bankrupt" Romney.
Putting aside his politics in the past, which I frequently disagreed with, Eastwood strikes me as a highly intellgent man. I seriously doubt that he didn't see how this might be viewed when it came out, or that he didn't have a say in the content.
Donny, you may be right that the add does not INTENTIONALLY sound like the Obama party line, but that is an insult to the intelligence of Chrysler and Eastwood. There is no way to separate the return of Chrysler and the auto-bailout, so if you want to say Chrysler is roaring back and is a symbol of what America can do as well, you are in fact defending the Bush-Obama bailout policies.
Indiana where the superbowl was depends on the auto industry. its not just michigan, its the entire freakin midwest. ever heard of the rust belt republicans. you have lost any chance of getting that vote. hilarious
I don't think you have to say you're "pro bailout" if you acknowledge the return/revival of Chrysler. Who's to say that you can't be glad it worked, but a believer that there was an even better alternative?
True, but the ad is basically saying "look at us in Detroit and how we came back. American can do that too." It doesn't say "Look how we came back. There's a way that would work better." Offering itself up as a shining example of what America should do to bounce back after "halftime" endorses the methods that were used to save Detroit.
It also doesn't say "Look at the method we used to come back. That would work for America too." To me, it's just self promotion in the same vein as ALL the other Chrysler commercials we've been seeing over the past 2-3 years. That rough, rugged, underdog, piss-and-vinegar, we-ain't-done-yet, we'll-prove-our-worth stuff. That message hasn't changed. So why people are making a big deal out of this ad, simply because it mentioned America (in addition to Detroit), is beyond me. I guess it's just because of the Superbowl spotlight. In short, promoting their brand does not promote the means/methods of their revival. They're promoting themselves, not spouting political doctrine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html Must have been some conspiracy theory by the NYT to dupe him into this...
A counterpoint courtesy of Salon I personally did not see it and don't really care one way or the other.
Romney's predictions on what would happen to the auto industry are almost as hilariously wrong as a certain CF poster's predictions about Langhi, Spanoulis, Brooks, Hill, etc. Romney:
This beautifully illustrates my "political rorschach test" theory. They saw in this ad what they wanted to see, whatever would trip their political sensitivities.
There is a difference between saying "we are still here and fighting" and saying "Look at what we did to come back. It will work for America." And yes, that is what they were saying. Now, ultimately I get that they were just promoting their brand and probably weren't trying to offer up a political message, but that is irrelevant. You can't separate the politics of the bailout and Detroit.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2...chrysler-spot-pro-obama/?mod=google_news_blog <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W-BVmeQyNIU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I think when you're in Chrysler's position, you're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Anything pro-Chrysler is pro-Obama / pro-Socialist propaganda now it seems. Especially when your "audience" in this case is a couple of demagogues.
So, both Michael Moore, who is a left-winger and pro-bail out, and Michelle Malkin, who is a right-wing blogger and anti-bail out, both think that the Eastwood ad supports the auto bailout. Isn't the point of a "Rorschach test" that different people see DIFFERENT things out of the image? Seems like both Moore and Malkin saw the same thing based on the quotes given above. I don't think Chrysler is trying to do anything other than getting people to buy Chrysler cars, but I think the effect of the ad is one that Obama would like very much. I also don't see anyone arguing how the ad could be read to favor Mitt Romney and his advocacy of "Let Detroit go Bankrupt."
What I find particularly hilarious is that the Obama Administration's rescue of the US auto industry has painted wingnuttia into the corner of hating on the major sector of American manufacturing. Now, when they see American cars and trucks they are thinking communism/socialism! And as we've seen by the reaction to this commercial, they won't be quiet about it. I'm sure this is going to work out well for them.
Yes, different people. As in, someone who wasn't politically hypersensitive (i.e. those two), wouldn't see it that way. And likely didn't/doesn't.
