February 7, 2012

"I think Eastwood got scammed. I think he got scammed."

"I think he got roped into doing something he thought was patriotic, and ended up being played. I do."

Rush Limbaugh on the Clint Eastwood "Halftime in America" Super Bowl ad.

(There's also a parody of the ad but you have to be a RushLimbaugh.com member to get to it. I wish he'd put it up for the general audience. It's quite good, basically making the pro-Obama political message overt.)

ADDED: Reason Magazine has a parody of the commercial.

102 comments:

Sorun said...

Old people are always being scammed. Nothing new there.

rcocean said...

So 'conservatism' now means hating American auto makers.

Weird.

Funny how Rush and all the other Dumbo's don't care about AIG and Citibank - but helping GM and Chryler is just unforgivable.

garage mahal said...

Pretty sure Clint could still knock fatso on his ass, like he always could. If that's what Limbaugh is wondering.

Palladian said...

"Funny how Rush and all the other Dumbo's don't care about AIG and Citibank - but helping GM and Chryler is just unforgivable."

If you can't tell the difference between stabilizing the banking system and saving a couple of rusted, bloated, failing car companies, there's not much use explaining things to you.

Palladian said...

Funny, Ford didn't need saving.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

"If you can't tell the difference between stabilizing the banking system and saving a couple of rusted, bloated, failing car companies, there's not much use explaining things to you."

So in other words we could spend $500 billion on TARP "stabilizing" the financial sector and saving them from their corruption and screw-ups - but spending $15 billion to save thousands of American jobs was inexcusable. Why they produced something, the peons, they deserved to fail.

Average people who believed in TARP are suckers who know nothing about the financial system - but think they do.

jacksonjay said...

As I recall, Limbaugh was not in favor of TARP, either!

Lem said...

We need to guard them like Ben Roethlisberger's friends guard a bathroom door.

Allegedly
.

lol

Sorry, I know we are not supposed to laugh at an alleged rape.

but.. i'm laughing at the idea of Ben's friends taking turns.. No, I thought it was your night.. No, I got him wednesdays.

YoungHegelian said...

It seems (as the comments here indicate) to be a truism on the left that the right was lock, stock, and barrel behind TARP.

Not true. At all. The leadership in the Democratic & Republican middle was for it, but the populist wing of the right was dead set against it from the get-go (Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck, etc).

Get it straight, guys. The right side of the right wing hates NYC based, useless, non-goods producing, lyin & cheatin' finance capital with a passion.

After all, most of Wall St.'s money goes to Democrats.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

"As I recall, Limbaugh was not in favor of TARP, either!"

So what? Who accused him of being inconsistent? No one. He was wrong to oppose the Auto Bailouts and most conservatives never talk about TARP - just the Auto bailouts.

Oh those damn American auto companies. If only we could out-source all those union jobs, then we could really some conservative money.

rcocean said...

No, lets get it right. The elite, bought and paid for by Wall street, wanted TARP. And all the reasonable, middle class boobs went along with it.

Just like they always do.

Because they're idiots. Why do you think we got into Vietnam?

Middle class boob bait always thinks they're tres sophisticated.

somefeller said...

Clint Eastwood did make a patriotic ad. Unfortunately, the anti-American wing of the conservative movement doesn't seem to get that. But they are to be pitied.

YoungHegelian said...

@rcocean,

Trust me, if you ever listened to Glenn Beck during the time of TARP, you would have gotten an earful on the evil of TARPitude.

Thorley Winston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Have to agree with El Rushbo. The story is Ford, not GM or Chrysler.

garage mahal said...

Pretty sure Clint could still knock fatso on his ass, like he always could.

And when did this happen?

Rowdy and Insp. Callahan always had stunt men.

Clint was off someplace whispering, "Acione".

Palladian said...

Funny, Ford didn't need saving.

Funny, Ford was much better managed.

Thorley Winston said...

Eastwood probably was paid more for doing a two minute voiceover than the combined annual income of the first ten people to post in this thread.

Yeah, he was really “scammed.”

Fen said...

Oh those damn American auto companies

Huh? 60% of Chrysler is owned by the Italians. Not the ones here, the ones in Italy.

Revenant said...

but spending $15 billion to save thousands of American jobs was inexcusable.

Yes, the government spending more money on saving a job than the job is worth is inexcusable.

Fen said...

Unfortunately, the anti-American wing of the conservative movement doesn't seem to get that.

Idiot. Do you know where Italy is? Well pause while you find a map.

[...]

See that country that looks like a boot? That's not America.

somefeller said...

And what does that have to do with my comment? I was talking about the hatred for America that people like Rush Limbaugh have, as evidenced by their comments about Clint Eastwood and the Chrysler ad. The natitonality of Chrysler's shareholders isn't relevant to my comment. The pitiful, anti-American nature of Rush Limbaugh and his fans is, however.

master cylinder said...

Hmm, the outrage de jour is now about a car commercial.

shiloh said...

A second chance for conservatives to whine at Althouse re: Eastwood.

Twice as nice ...

somefeller said...

And natitonality is a dreadful misspelling that my iPhone missed. Alas. I blame Saul Alinsky.

The Crack Emcee said...

Rush's parody,...

Lem said...

Thanks Crack.

Beta Rube said...

If Chrysler and GM workers had not been on the automatic deduction plan with the DNC, those companies would be in operating in bankruptcy right now.

No one takes care of donors better than the O.

Bender said...

60% of Chrysler is owned by the Italians

I did like that Fiat commercial during the Super Bowl.

(and at the time, before they indicated it was Fiat, I thought that the ad was awfully racy, but about what you would expect from Italian media)

(and I'm sorry to those of you who think I'm engaging in word games with the use of the word "Fiat")

Fen said...

Somefeller: And what does that have to do with my comment?

You complained about "anti-Americanism" directed at an Italian-owned company.

I thought it should be obvious.

But I can break it down further for you if need be.

jacksonjay said...

Autoworker job were "outsourced " to Right to Work states!

Fen said...

If its Halftime in America, Obama should be benched.

The fricken waterboy could lead better than DHOTUS.

Bender said...

Especially with the foam dropping in her cleavage. Bellissima.

On YouTube: Seduction" -- 2012 Super Bowl FIAT 500 Abarth Commercial

somefeller said...

As I stated, the topic is Rush's hatred of America, not the nationality of Chrysler's owners. And what is wrong with foreigners owning stock in US companies? Don't you believe in global capitalism and the free flow of investment across borders?

I need to get some sleep. The loathing of America and capitalism around here is too disturbing.

Fen said...

Yah, she was nice, but I've known her type. All I could think of was "high maintenance bitch".

Odds that it also applies to the car?

jacksonjay said...

Outraged about Obama campaign ad paid for with my tax dollars. Chryler brands mentioned at the very end. Ad did not sell sexy, reliable and desirable car!

Fen said...

As I stated, the topic is Rush's hatred of America, not the nationality of Chrysler's owners.

Well then thats even stupider. Rush doensn't hate America, he hates what people like you would turn her in to.

Just admit it - you were trying to play a little game of tarring conservs as "anti-american" and it fell flat.

Thats what happens when you cut n paste talking points that you didn't make. You screw it up.

Matt said...

Yeah, Eastwood was scammed because despite the fact that he works with and likes some of the most liberal Hollywood actors he is secretly a right wing blow hard who secretly likes Rush-baugh. My goodness.

The clear message from Rush is: Don't buy American if a Democrat had anything to do with it. Even if it is an auto bailout that helped employ American workers - many of whom are conservative.

Why does anyone take Rush seriously?

Fen said...

The clear message from Rush is: Don't buy American if a Democrat had anything to do with it. Even if it is an auto bailout that helped employ American workers - many of whom are conservative.

Wrong again. The message is:

Don't reinforce failure.

Lem said...

That's not a Fiat.. its a Sequoia

edutcher said...

Amusing how the only thing that will get the Lefties to go all patriotic and pro-America is a Democrat running for re-election.

PS I was agreeing with you. What is the point if the votes don't count?

jacksonjay said...

How about ANOTHER bailout of Fiskar? Fancy high-priced electric lemon!

pm317 said...

Why aren't people picking up on the subliminal message in that ad that it is half time for Obama and the second half is his second term? Everybody focused on the bailout but the emphasis was that it was half time -- half of his 2 term presidency.

EMD said...

Don't reinforce failure.

Amen.

Does anyone here drink imported beer?

How dare you take food off the tables from American workers!

Of course AB is owned by the Dutch, so ...

Ctmom4 said...

"Why aren't people picking up on the subliminal message in that ad that it is half time for Obama and the second half is his second term? Everybody focused on the bailout but the emphasis was that it was half time -- half of his 2 term presidency." It's football, PM. At the half, the other team gets the ball.

traditionalguy said...

Clint usually does a story about men with courage.

The GOP is nervous because that is also Obama's claim to fame:having courage in the face of his enemies... who are us.

Obama shows no fear. He is a dangerous man to have against us.

Rush also points out that the GOP Establishment ( his words) is afraid of losing the independents by looking racist when attacking Obama.

Where is our side's candidate with courage? Being double minded is a big mistake.

Alan said...

Autoworker job were "outsourced " to Right to Work states!

When they said the South would rise again, they probably didn't imagine Japanese auto plants in the picture...

Bender said...

Why aren't people picking up on the subliminal message in that ad that it is half time for Obama and the second half is his second term?

Isn't that they way that EVERYONE took it? Even if that's not what Eastwood intended, it is obvious that that is the way it comes across.

Axelrod, et al., almost immediately came out pushing it as if it were the counterpart to Reagan's "It's Morning in America" ad campaign.

jacksonjay said...

Alabama has a beautiful Mercedes plant! We kicked they ass in WWII then let them put us to work, non-union, of course!

ic said...

Money talks, Chrysler's (i.e. our) money talks Eastwood into shilling for Obama.

"Funny how Rush and all the other Dumbo's don't care about AIG and Citibank - but helping GM and Chryler is just unforgivable."

It ain't that funny. Rush and most of the Dumbos were against TARP including AIG and Citi. Chrysler, previously a German company, now is an Italian company. It'll become a Chinese company in the next down turn if it manages to survive that long and the Chinese suddenly turn stupid.

Rafique said...

Whatever one's view of the auto bailout, I find it fascinating the way Rush's mind works--Clint Eastwood does an ostensibly uncontroversial ad that talks about American renewal, and accordign to Rush, he must have been scammed into doing so, because the ad appears to help Obama. I didn't really see it as pro or anti-Obama, but for the sake of argument let's assume it will help the President. I find it amazing that Limbaugh is convinced that Clint must be have been duped, because there is no way in Rush's mind that he would've willingly chosen to do the ad, if he knew it might appear to help Obama, or actually do so. Because Eastwood must be senile, I guess, right? After all, if Clint had know better, he would've done a really patriotic ad, one that unites the country to destroy liberalism--because according to Rush, that's the only truly pstriotic thing to do.

Just fascinating...

Revenant said...

Clint Eastwood does an ostensibly uncontroversial ad that talks about American renewal

Odd definition of "renewal" you're using there.

In any event, it is controversial because most Americans are, and were, opposed to the bailouts. The company's profits came out of our pockets.

Rafique said...

OK, so renewal might be a bit too broad, but I think that was supposed to be the idea of the ad--economic renewal. And yeah, I get that the bailouts are controversial--of course they are--but I think the ad was supposed make the case for good news on the horizon, with the improving auto industry as proof. Maybe it doesn't do the job as well as it could, but I still find the idea that Eastwood was duped just bizarre.

FedkaTheConvict said...

Jay Leno: "“It may be halftime in America, but China's got the ball and we're down by 16 trillion”."

I certainly didn't support TARP or any other bailouts. But as I recall, the US Treasury made a handsome profit on its loans to the financial sector (AIG is likely the exception).

By comparison, Chrysler owes at least $1.3 billion and GM repaid the TARP "loan" with bailout money (the treasury estimates a $23.8 billion loss on GM's bailout). Yet remarkably, Chrysler is making bonus payments to employees on Friday.

HT said...

I did not see the ad endorsing Obama either, Rafique. Especially when he said they tried to knock us down, or words to that effect, I assumed that he was talking about September 11, 2001, and how yeah we took a hit, including economically, it's been bad, but we got up and continue to be on our way back.

I did not read politics into it either.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I didn't see the ad as pro-Obama, but that could be because I didn't see the ad. I gather it has something to do with how much better off we are because Chrysler and GM went through politically manipulated reorganizations instead of ordinary reorganizations.

Robert Cook said...

"After all, most of Wall St.'s money goes to Democrats."

No, Wall Street is truly non-partisan...they try to buy ALL the politicians, irrespective of party affiliation!

Carnifex said...

I saw the ad, I thought "Damn! Eastwood made a really sucky ad! Kinda reminds me of BO's tenure as president! Note to self: don't vote for sucky president." Then the Go Daddy ad came on and I...put it out of my head because it was a sucky ad! I got more things goin' wrong with my life, I don't need to manage Clint Eastwoods career!(the Go Daddy ad too) Like Chris Rock said, "There is no sex in the champagne room"

Here's to people lightening up, lighting up, having a toke, and chilling out for God sake.

It reminds me of the Apple ad so many years ago...that was a sucky ad too. Only Aldous Huxley could like those ads. And he's dead!

Carnifex said...

Ps. How about that half time show?! (wink wink nudge nudge) Say no more!

Robert Cook said...

"Outraged about Obama campaign ad paid for with my tax dollars."

Are you referring to the Clint Eastwood car commercial? If so, how were your tax dollars (or mine) used to pay for it? If it was an ad for and by Chrysler, Chrysler paid for it.

Chip S. said...

Cook actually has a sort of a point.

The commercial was mostly paid for by Chrysler's former bondholders.

Jay said...

but spending $15 billion to save thousands of American jobs was inexcusable.



The government spent $50 billion on GM alone and will lose $30 billion total between GM & Chrysler.

PS: Chrysler is owned by an Italian company.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

Are you referring to the Clint Eastwood car commercial? If so, how were your tax dollars (or mine) used to pay for it? If it was an ad for and by Chrysler, Chrysler paid for it


Captain Dense:
The federal government sank billions into Chrysler and lost $1.2 billion.

Chrysler didn't pay for the ad.

KJE said...

Clint's commercial reminded me of a Harley-Davidson ad campgaign from 2008; "So Screw it, Let's Ride."

One was called, "We don't do fear" and the other, "You can file our obituary where the sun don't shine."

Look Google Images should be able to show you what they were

Jay said...

somefeller said...
As I stated, the topic is Rush's hatred of America, not the nationality of Chrysler's owners. And what is wrong with foreigners owning stock in US companies? Don't you believe in global capitalism and the free flow of investment across borders?


Um, Fiat doesn't just "own stock" in Chrysler, they own the company.

PS: Why aren't you asking what is wrong with the federal government owning stock in a car company?

Quaestor said...

rcocean wrote:
Funny how Rush and all the other Dumbo's don't care about AIG and Citibank - but helping GM and Chryler is just unforgivable.

To which jacksonjay replied:
As I recall, Limbaugh was not in favor of TARP, either!

rcocean countered with:
So what? Who accused him of being inconsistent? No one. He was wrong to oppose the Auto Bailouts and most conservatives never talk about TARP - just the Auto bailouts.

So rcocean is no one? I've suspected this before.

Quaestor said...

Doctor Johnson would have something to say to rcocean.

kcom said...

"Why aren't you asking what is wrong with the federal government owning stock in a car company?"

Isn't it obvious? The government should own everything. Then life would be "fair" to everyone and we'd all live in a utopia.

(Just don't pry too deeply into the nomenklatura's lifestyle. Asking about those fancy country homes that no one else is allowed to own might get you sent to the gulag.)

wv: abkject - the sort of poverty we'll be living in once the government completes its plan to run everything in your life

Chip S. said...

Why aren't you asking what is wrong with the federal government owning stock in a car company?

You got a problem with collective ownership of the means of production? Better review the playbook before the second-half kickoff, citizen.

Maguro said...

Do any of the bailout supporters really think that GM and Chrysler have turned things around? The taxpayer dumped a lot of cash into these companies and that's undoubtedly helped in the short term, but Chrysler and especially GM have been burning through cash since the 70s. What makes anyone think the problem has really been solved this time?

They have the same unions, the same management types, the same mediocre product lines and indifferent quality control, but somehow it's going to turn out differently this time? Really?

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Pretty sure Clint could still knock fatso on his ass, like he always could. If that's what Limbaugh is wondering.




Why the violent fantasies? Your dad can beat up my dad? How old are you, like, 12?

Jay said...

wv: abkject - the sort of poverty we'll be living in once the government completes its plan to run everything in your life


Yeah but at least we'll have gay marriage in every church but the Mosques! (The "courageous" gays won't dare go after them).

You got a problem with collective ownership of the means of production? Better review the playbook before the second-half kickoff, citizen.


Yes, that and about 10 bottles of vodka. Something tells me it is going to be a long 2nd half...

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

GM have been burning through cash since the 70s.

I dared to point this out and added GM will have the same problems 10 years from now (while noting that Obama screwed GM bondholders, took 25% ownership in a car company and invested $50 billion to end up with 10's of thousands of fewer employees, and closed dealerships) on another blog to the leftists crowing that GM was "back" and their response was that I'd get laughed out of any middle-management meeting in America.

Isn't leftist economics fun?

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25
/business/25chrysler.html

Robert Cook said...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/autos/
chrysler_debt/index.htm

damikesc said...

The natitonality of Chrysler's shareholders isn't relevant to my comment. The pitiful, anti-American nature of Rush Limbaugh and his fans is, however.

Opposing a bailout of an Italian owned car company is "anti-American"?

And what is wrong with foreigners owning stock in US companies? Don't you believe in global capitalism and the free flow of investment across borders?

Nothing is wrong with it.

But it makes it hard to refer to an Italian-owned car company being "American".

Also, the blatant manipulation of law in the whole affair should be opposed by all.

Jay said...

Oh and here is another leftist sink hole:


In 2009, Vice President Joe Biden headed joined Fisker officials in Delaware in announcing the resurrection of the former GM plant, and Delaware’s Council on Development Finance approved a $12.5 million loan to Fisker to help build the Nina in Delaware. The loan will become a grant if Fisker spends at least $175 million renovating the old GM facility and shows that it created 2,495 jobs in five years.

The state also agreed to provide a $9 million grant to help Fisker pay utility bills while the former GM plant is retrofitted and restarted. About half of that grant has been used to date, Selander said.



Fisker is laying off people...

Chip S. said...

Also from the NYT, re Chrysler's former bondholders:

Back in 2009, the government strong-armed them into writing down more than two-thirds of an investment that they thought had been secured by hard assets.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/autos/
chrysler_debt/index.htm


Kookie:

You really need to catch up with the times.

The Chrysler Group bailout officially ended Thursday when the Treasury Department sold off its remaining stake in the automaker, and the final tally shows the taxpayers lost $1.3 billion

Bonus:
So how can the Chrysler Group LLC claim to have squared its obligation to the American taxpayers when only 85 percent of the taxpayers' investment in Chrysler has been recouped?

Notice how we keep writing Chrysler Group LLC. There's a reason for that. That's the "new" Chrysler company that emerged from bankruptcy in 2009.



Stop being so dense.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Interesting thread. The separateness of Big Business and government isn't something Cook ordinarily spends a lot of time insisting on.

Fen said...

Wasting your time Jay. People like Cook aren't really interested in what's true. He's the guy that will insist his team caught the football even as the replay shows otherwise on the 12 big screens around him.

For libtards, tribalism trumps common sense.

AJ Lynch said...

I get tired of the thinking that all things are political. That is why we get national headlines re Komen's relatively small $600K donation and why we now argue about a Super Bowl ad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Logically the bailouts should set the precedent that bankruptcy is obsolete and a business failure should be able to petition for taxpayer money to revive its business model.

In the interest of fairness of course. I'm certain the small business owner and employees have as much interest in maintaing their paychecks as auto execs, bankers and union workers.

James said...

Treasury ups auto bailout loss estimate

January 30, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Washington -The U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million.

In the government's latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.

Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion.

Much of the increase in losses is due to the sharp decline of GM's stock price over the last six months.

...The government booked a $1.3 billion loss on its $12.5 billion bailout of Chrysler.

As part of its $17.2 billion bailout, the Treasury still holds a 74 percent majority stake in Ally Financial Inc., the Detroit-based auto lender and bank holding company. Ally, formerly known as GMAC, put its IPO on hold indefinitely last year because of market weakness.

The government initially estimated it would lose $44 billion on its auto bailout in 2009, before reducing it to $30 billion in December 2009.

ken in sc said...

Before the bailout, GM used to advertize on Rush's show. They even gave him an Escalade to test drive, but he farmed it out to his staff. He prefers Maybachs.

Peter Hoh said...

Yesterday, I listened to a caller on a radio show argue that shareholders like him, who are left holding worthless GM stock, are the ones who really bailed out GM, not the taxpayers.

Uh huh.

roesch/voltaire said...

Lets see Chrysler managed to pay back %90 of the loan, employ about 54,000 and has 30 plants in the US. Canada, and Mexico, and their struggle to make a come back can be characterized as not- American? So any one who thinks that pulling together to improve wages, job security in this country has been scammed? If anyone has been scammed it is the Rush believers who can not see how their party of NO is not in the best interest of the majority and only servers to benefit the few.

Fen said...

You should move to Detroit to help them out, like a "true" american patriot would....

roesch/voltaire said...

To get a complete picture maybe check out Gross's story on Yahoo Finance:
Let's review the record. Chrysler was run into the ground by Cerberus, a private equity company controlled by Stephen Feinberg, a major contributor to Republican candidates. When push came to shove in late 2008, Feinberg, a billionaire, chose not to use his own resources or those of his fund to meet Chrysler's vast financial obligations. So in early 2009, the Bush administration, for which Karl Rove worked, used funds from the TARP, a piece of legislation the Bush administration proposed and that was supported by Republican Congressional leaders, to help Chrysler. Take a look at the record. On January 2, 2009, the Bush administration lent $4 billion to Chrysler. On January 9, 2009, it lent another $1.5 billion to Chrysler's financing company.

Jay said...

Take a look at the record. On January 2, 2009, the Bush administration lent $4 billion to Chrysler. On January 9, 2009, it lent another $1.5 billion to Chrysler's financing company.


I like how this is supposed to mean something.

Obama supported TARP, Obama implemented TARP, Obama brags about the auto-bailouts, Obama asked for TARP 2.

EMD said...

Chrysler was run into the ground by Cerberus,

Chrysler was done in by a lot more than Cerberus.

Hell, Daimler couldn't fix them, either. Remember that foreign-ownership fiasco?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Someone has probably already pointed out that the Chrysler super bowl ad was created at least in part by those that supported Obama's election in the first place.

I know this must be utterly earth-shattering news.

Try to keep your shock in check.

Ken said...

So 'conservatism' now means hating American auto makers.

Only a liberal could say something that stupid. It means hating using the government to take from the tax payers to line their own pockets when they couldn't convince customers to voluntarily buy their products.

Joe said...

Chrysler was run into the ground by Cerberus...

No Chrysler was run into the ground by making some of the shittiest cars ever, going back decades. Lee Iacocca was a good spokesman, but the company still made crap cars. They still do.

ajcjw said...

"Funny how Rush and all the other Dumbo's don't care about AIG and Citibank - but helping GM and Chryler is just unforgivable."

Not sure just who the "other Dumbos" are, but if you mean Conservatives what makes you think they don't care about the AIG and Citibank bailouts? I know plenty of Conservatives who think giving taxpayer money to private enterprise is wrong, whether it be banks or car companies. And BTW, "dumbos" in your construction is plural, not possessive. No apostrophe necessary.

jim said...

Gack. Feel free to spare the world any further chapters in the Rush Limbaugh: My Life As An Emo Goth-Girl Trapped In A Man's Body saga.

Wow. No wonder the American Right is losing credibility - the entire crowd is getting perpetually whiny & lazy.

Back in the day, they'd've spun this into "Inspector Callahan's right! It's halftime in America, & the situation is grim - we need to boot that Kenyan Marxist out of OUR White House for the second half! RAWR!!!" faster than you could say "Morning In America."

For goodness' sake, you had no less an icon than Dirty Harry tee it right up for you! Even Karl Rove - who really ought to know better - was clutching his pearls & openly yearning for some quality-time with his hugbox right along with the rest. Poor Clint must be facepalming SO HARD right now.

Even as far back as the Nixon Era, this kind of rookie fumble on a gimme-play would have been seen as strictly, well ... Bush League.

roesch/voltaire said...

It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

JAL said...

Think I saw somewhere that Eastwood disavows any support for Obama. Can't find the link now.

Alex said...

Isn't it amazing that any Rush article brings out the trolls in full force? I mean it's been 24 years since he got on the radio and he's still driving liberals insane.

Jay said...

Oh how shocking:

Several members of the Wieden+Kennedy team that produced the Eastwood spot were among the creative professionals who privately supported Obama’s first election campaign. Creative director Aaron Allen, for example, created a striking poster, called “United the States of America,” on candidate Obama’s behalf. The poster shows an Obama silhouette bringing together red and blue spheres meant to represent America’s partisan division. His official bio notes that he “also works on personal art projects, including a poster for the 2008 Obama campaign that was shown in several galleries and publications.”