Skip to comments.What’s Behind Eastwood’s Super Bowl Ad?
Posted on 02/07/2012 9:57:32 AM PST by jazusamo
It is mostly unanimous that Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl ad appearance was a stirring and emotional tribute to America and Detroit. The ad was heartfelt, despite the fact that bailed out Italian-owned auto company, Chrysler, paid for it. Unless NBC offered some significant discounts to their ad rates, the ad cost Chrysler about $14 million. Considering the political nature of the ad and the fact that Chrysler vehicles were not touted in the ad, I must ask the cynical question; what's in it for Italian-owned Chrysler?
Chrysler CEO, Sergio Marchionne, is a pretty smart guy. I don't think he would cavalierly spend $14 million just to pay tribute to America and Detroit. An article in Businessweek touches on one possible ulterior motive when it states, "Chrysler continues to seek low-interest loans from the U.S. Energy Department to develop and produce fuel-efficient cars. The company sought $3.5 billion in such loans last year, and that amount has been reduced, Marchionne said. 'I'm not ready to give up,' Marchionne told reporters Feb. 4 at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas. 'The department has not indicated an unwillingness to lend.'"
Well, I'm guessing that "the department's unwillingness to lend" has just been reduced further as Chrysler's ad serves as a campaign boost to President Obama. The Administration seemed pleased as they continued with their campaign to run on the perceived success at Chrysler and GM; as noted in the piece, "...the president's lieutenants praised the ad on Twitter." And, "'Saving the America Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on,' Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in a post on Twitter."
There is a dangerous precedent in having a US President campaigning on the success of an industry that the same Administration has an investment stake in (as in taxpayers' stake in General Motors) that continually raises the question of conflicts of interest. When else has a company receiving billions of taxpayer dollars like GM, owned partially by the government, run an ad disparaging an American company, like non-bailed out Ford, as happened in another Super Bowl ad?
As long as President Obama refuses to exit the taxpayers' ownership stake in GM while he continues campaigning on a platform of their success, there will be those of us who are suspicious of the actions involving both the company and our government. I find it hard to believe that many others are not questioning the ethical issues of having our President have such a vested interest in the auto sector while government agencies, like NHTSA, are responsible for overseeing the industry. And as far as Chrysler and Marchionne are concerned, let's see just how much influence the Eastwood ad bought them when the Energy Dept., or any other federal division, decides to dole out more taxpayer cash as payback for the campaign help.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.
Sounds like a good possibility, especially with Obama running things.
We have the original Chrysler bailout back in 1977 to blame, that’s when it became expected that Government would step in and save companies that were “Too big to fail.”
American motors comes to mind.
Good commercial and great message!
That was Clint Eastwoods jump the shark moment for me
And I had been a life long fan
Screw that! It was taxpayer financed commie f'ing propoganda!
I think this was tantamount to a taxpayer funded campaign commercial for Obama. I didn't like the message.
Gov’t bailouts date back to the Washington administration.
They screwed their investors. I would not touch a Chrysler. And since 1980 I’ve owned:
1980 Dodge D50 pickup
84 Plymouth Reliant Station Wagon
87 Plymouth Reliant
88 Dodge Omni
1995 Lebaron convertible
2001 Chrysler 300m
I’m driving the 300 into the ground right now on my 100 mile commute. Love the car, even at 160,000 miles it is like new, except it could use shocks, but I’m done with Chrysler and GM, for obvious reasons.
They lost a lifelong customer - for good.
I like the new Fords and am considering a Fusion to replace the 300M when the wheels fall off.
Not on that grand of a scale.
I’m hopin it was just Oltimer’s...
I know exactly how you feel. Since I was a little kid I was a huge Eastwood fan and was proud of the fact that my birthday was wedged neatly between GK Chesterton and Clint Eastwood.
I guess I can still be proud of Chesterton...
What was the great message, Moleman??
Ditto. Maybe he needs the money
Eastwood is just another Hollywierdo and former mayor of leftist California town Carmel.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main article: Clint Eastwood
Actor and director Clint Eastwood has long shown an interest in politics. He was elected mayor in April 1986 of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and in 2001, he was appointed to the California State Park and Recreation Commission by Governor Gray Davis.
At times, he has supported Democrats in California, such as the liberal and environmentally concerned Representative Sam Farr in 2002. Eastwood contributed $1,000 to Farr’s successful re-election campaign that year and on May 23, 2003, he hosted a $5,000-per-ticket fundraiser for California’s Democratic governor, Gray Davis. Later that year, Eastwood offered to film a commercial in support of the embattled governor, and in 2001, the star visited Davis’ office to support an alternative energy bill written by another Democrat, California State Assemblyman Fred Keeley.
Clint Eastwood As Tokyo Rose? Director Made Up Scenes in ‘Iwo Jima’ Documentary
World Net Daily.com ^ | 12/22/06 | staff report
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 9:35:47 AM by meg88
Doesn’t matter. Precedent was set. And by the administration of a founding father.
Maybe Clint owed them something from his spaghetti western days. Kind of a mob thing. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.