Clint Eastwood, Chrysler and Obama

Knowing absolutely nothing about the Super Bowl Chrysler/Clint Eastwood commercial in advance, I said aloud before the commercial was done, “Shame on you, Clint Eastwood” and reminded myself that I had always believed he was generally conservative, a bit Libertarian. I had no idea why he would hawk the most
poorly fiscally managed and one of the most corrupt cities in America and act
as if Detroit was pulling itself out of cesspool because people are “pulling together.” I knew in the first thirty seconds that it was a commercial for Obama and yet have to say I STILL cannot put my finger on exactly why. I may not be the only one who is not clear about this; read my comments about the ad agency – below. I have since read several articles about this boondoggle which if conducted by Ronald Reagan would be investigated by the New York Times for years. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when we need them?

I will bullet what I understand to be fact followed by opinion.

FACT: Clint said it was not a political commercial and that he is “no way affiliated with Obama.” He stated his fees are being donated to a charity in Monterrey, CA where he lives.

OPINION: I believe that he did not see the advertisement as controversial. I believe he does not support Obama and it will be fun to watch if down the road he has further comments on this commercial and his involvement. He is a very smart man and has worked in government (a popular mayor of Carmel, CA for a number of years). I have to believe he did not see this as a scam.

FACT: The two creators of this commercial worked personally for Obama’s campaign in
2008. They apparently did this commercial without fee. The firm for
which these people work is known as having an extraordinary ability to weave
political messages in to otherwise innocuous advertising.

OPINION: Perhaps this is why I cannot point to the praise of Obama that is clearly in this ad. Why would two successful people in this profession, working for a firm
clear across the country (Portland, Oregon) do this work for free? I believe (and think others know this to be true) that it was because it was the express wish that the two creators not be tied to Chrysler which was bailed out by Obama, or to Obama directly. By doing the work for free they, Chrysler and the Democratic National Committee can avoid answering allegations of campaign financing law violations (though there still is the problem of the value of their donated time).

FACT: the commercial declares that Detroit is “pulling together.”

OPINION: Not in the least; we have seen in Detroit a mayor whose corruption is next to Marion Barry’s (former Mayor of D.C.); and a city that has not broken usurious union contracts to try to obtain less expensive labor for police and fire protection. That Detroit has survived this long is only because Obama’s GM and Chrysler bailouts allowed some employment and some of their employees to remain in the city. Chrysler and GM took these bailouts because Obama did not want them to declare bankruptcy and thus legally void union contracts (at that time UAW employees were being paid $72 per hour including all benefits – I avoid using the words, “were
earning”).

FACT: Chrysler has refinanced much of its bailout but the Feds, i.e., you and me, will still write off an estimated $1.3 billion in bad debt.

OPINION: This ad is clearly a “soft money” campaign contribution from Chrysler to Obama. In other words, while Chrysler will skip on $1.3 billion in public debt they will be financing Obama’s reelection campaign. Chrysler has no business buying advertising that is not strictly related to its product line until all public debt is
repaid.

RELATED: Someone in the Obama administration - I do not know who but the story is true - has hinted that there might be a way for the Feds to excuse Detroit citizens from paying Federal income taxes. I am happy to say that will be unconstitutional but it is my hunch (having worked for government for 28 years)that the intent is that Detroit can levy the taxes that would have otherwise gone to the Feds, thus “bailing” itself out whereas had the income taxes found their way to the Federal general fund, the house Republicans would have opposed a bailout of Detroit. Again, Detroit is not pulling together (FACT: The commercial was NOT filmed in Detroit). The unions continue their unmitigated greed, in the private sector, keeping the Big 3 from full employment and in the public sector, bankrupting the city of Detroit – with the willing cooperation of union-purchased administrators. The administration of the city continues to live a very pleasant lifestyle. The rich have fled and the poor cannot count on responsive police and fire “services.” Thanks, Clint, for painting a picture to the contrary.

Mr. Eastwood, you are a credible man; I hope one day you dig a little deeper (CNN and MSNBC won’t) and comment on this fiasco and if you still believe it was nothing more than praise for a determined America, I’ll take my Dramamine and watch the commercial again.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&