“I am certainly not affiliated with Mr. Obama,” Mr. Eastwood told a Fox News producer for “The O'Reilly Factor” on Monday. “It was meant to be a message just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”
Trying to clear the air, Mr. Eastwood said that he’s not supporting any politician at this time and that any money Chrysler paid him went to charity.
“If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of the ad, go for it,” he told Fox News.
Nobody claimed Clint Eastwood was giving Obama an endorsement, but his message of unity was viciously attacked by conservatives none the less. They are being pretty open about their economic treason with the specific goal of defeating Obama and thereby derailing any potential economic reforms that could endanger the profiteering scheme of their corporate overlords.
Liberals aren't the ones who reacted negatively to the ad. If you have a problem with the GOP getting blasted for their reaction you may wanna take that up with Mr. Rove and everyone who gets their marching orders from him.
Actually, it was FAUX (not the real news), who first said the commercial was pro Obama. And they said, it was Chrysler paying back Obama for the bailout. When in truth, Mr. Eastwood is saying different, isn't he?
FAUX, (not the news) You lose, again.
The commercial wasn't even political. If the commercial makes Republicans look bad, it is their own fault. It was in their power to have been supportive of the automotive industry, but they instead chose to try to throw it under the bus. At the very least, they should have been smart enough to keep their mouths shut instead of setting themselves against a Pro-America Superbowl commercial.
Mark no one is rubbing this in your face. The truth is Chrysler is doing a lot better since the bailout. This despite the conspiracy theories claiming this was a political. What the Left is generally pointing out is the fact some on the Right would rather see people silent on good news rather then seeing anyone talk about it.
What kind of f**knut tries to divine deep political meaning from a car commercial?!?
Eastwood's commercial was meant to make MONEY for his client. That's it.
Classy Mr. Eastwood (not sarcasm, I like the man and message). I saw the commercial and agreed with its message. Bending it to your political direction is mental masturbation.
Focus on job growth and unity to get all and I mean all of us out of the rut we are in.
-Holding tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits hostage to secure tax cuts for the rich
-bringing us to the brink of defaulting on our debts to try to force cuts to medicare, and costing us hundreds of billions as our national credit rating lost mojo as a result
-obstructing any real type of economic recovery, including JOBS bills
I would call those all economic treason, but I am admittedly a harsh judge of character.
That's not the claim you made. You're claiming that Obama is using that money to make campaign commercials. What's really happening here is an American company is trying to make a come back and is using big name actors and the Super Bowl to get their message out. That conservatives are interpreting the "half time" thing as a reference to a second Obama term is just purely speculation and, frankly, paranoid nonsense. Clint Eastwood is a known conservative and has no love for Obama, and the Obama administration has already said they had no ties to the commercial.
These claims of campaigning and conspiracy are so thin and reek of desperation.
What the republicons have been doing is bad for America as they put party before country.
Why else would they give tax breaks to companies that export jobs while voting against the bailout.?
And then the blocked the Democrats from repealing that unAmerican mess.
"The GOP has a right to their votes and positions without being charged with economic treason."
Well, technically and legally, no one has committed treason. But the treason is there in spirit, none-the-less. The idea, and acting in accordance with the idea, that the political goal of preventing the re-ellection of a sitting president should be achieved even at the cost of economically damaging the country - of causing regular Americans to be unnecessarily unemployed, of causing them to be making less money than they should be, of being unable to afford housing or basic necessities, simply to obtain a political goal - and having this carried out by the elected representatives of the people, who hold the people's sacred trust to act in the people's best interests - is repugnant, at best, and if its not a betrayal of America, short of aiding our military enemies, I don't know what is.
Desperate people who are deathly afraid of Obama. They see Obama in everything, no matter how trivial. They won't be satisfied until everything is slashed and burned just in case there's any relation to Obama.
They aren't built in Italy. C'mon, stev, you can do better than that.
You realize that every automobile on the market was subsidized with government money, either domestically or overseas, right? So unless you build your own cars (and machine your own parts, too), your principles on this issue are meaningless, partisan whining.
drich255Feb 7, 2012Buried
“I am certainly not affiliated with Mr. Obama,” Mr. Eastwood told a Fox News producer for “The O'Reilly Factor” on Monday. “It was meant to be a message just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”
Trying to clear the air, Mr. Eastwood said that he’s not supporting any politician at this time and that any money Chrysler paid him went to charity.
“If Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of the ad, go for it,” he told Fox News.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/clint-eastwood-i-am-certainly-not-affiliated-obama/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
novenatorFeb 7, 2012Buried
Nobody claimed Clint Eastwood was giving Obama an endorsement, but his message of unity was viciously attacked by conservatives none the less. They are being pretty open about their economic treason with the specific goal of defeating Obama and thereby derailing any potential economic reforms that could endanger the profiteering scheme of their corporate overlords.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 7, 2012Buried
Liberals aren't the ones who reacted negatively to the ad. If you have a problem with the GOP getting blasted for their reaction you may wanna take that up with Mr. Rove and everyone who gets their marching orders from him.
u2canfailFeb 7, 2012Buried
Actually, it was FAUX (not the real news), who first said the commercial was pro Obama. And they said, it was Chrysler paying back Obama for the bailout. When in truth, Mr. Eastwood is saying different, isn't he?
FAUX, (not the news) You lose, again.
langfordFeb 7, 2012Buried
The commercial wasn't even political. If the commercial makes Republicans look bad, it is their own fault. It was in their power to have been supportive of the automotive industry, but they instead chose to try to throw it under the bus. At the very least, they should have been smart enough to keep their mouths shut instead of setting themselves against a Pro-America Superbowl commercial.
GentlemanGhost542Feb 7, 2012Buried
Mark no one is rubbing this in your face. The truth is Chrysler is doing a lot better since the bailout. This despite the conspiracy theories claiming this was a political. What the Left is generally pointing out is the fact some on the Right would rather see people silent on good news rather then seeing anyone talk about it.
bwiiiFeb 7, 2012Buried
What kind of f**knut tries to divine deep political meaning from a car commercial?!?
Eastwood's commercial was meant to make MONEY for his client. That's it.
inajeepFeb 7, 2012Buried
Classy Mr. Eastwood (not sarcasm, I like the man and message). I saw the commercial and agreed with its message. Bending it to your political direction is mental masturbation.
Focus on job growth and unity to get all and I mean all of us out of the rut we are in.
novenatorFeb 7, 2012Buried
-Holding tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits hostage to secure tax cuts for the rich
-bringing us to the brink of defaulting on our debts to try to force cuts to medicare, and costing us hundreds of billions as our national credit rating lost mojo as a result
-obstructing any real type of economic recovery, including JOBS bills
I would call those all economic treason, but I am admittedly a harsh judge of character.
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
That's not the claim you made. You're claiming that Obama is using that money to make campaign commercials. What's really happening here is an American company is trying to make a come back and is using big name actors and the Super Bowl to get their message out. That conservatives are interpreting the "half time" thing as a reference to a second Obama term is just purely speculation and, frankly, paranoid nonsense. Clint Eastwood is a known conservative and has no love for Obama, and the Obama administration has already said they had no ties to the commercial.
These claims of campaigning and conspiracy are so thin and reek of desperation.
GentlemanGhost542Feb 7, 2012Buried
Also the Eastwood is registered Republican that opposed the bailouts
JustSayNoPartyFeb 7, 2012Buried
Well, if these so-called news networks aren't whipping up scandals, how else are they supposed to get ratings? Simply reporting the facts?
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
Your tin foil hat must be too tight and cutting off oxygen to your brain.
miklkitFeb 7, 2012Buried
What the republicons have been doing is bad for America as they put party before country.
Why else would they give tax breaks to companies that export jobs while voting against the bailout.?
And then the blocked the Democrats from repealing that unAmerican mess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092806143.html
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
No, he didn't.
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
oh em gee, why do you hate America, stev? derp
notachickenhawkFeb 7, 2012Buried
"The GOP has a right to their votes and positions without being charged with economic treason."
Well, technically and legally, no one has committed treason. But the treason is there in spirit, none-the-less. The idea, and acting in accordance with the idea, that the political goal of preventing the re-ellection of a sitting president should be achieved even at the cost of economically damaging the country - of causing regular Americans to be unnecessarily unemployed, of causing them to be making less money than they should be, of being unable to afford housing or basic necessities, simply to obtain a political goal - and having this carried out by the elected representatives of the people, who hold the people's sacred trust to act in the people's best interests - is repugnant, at best, and if its not a betrayal of America, short of aiding our military enemies, I don't know what is.
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
Desperate people who are deathly afraid of Obama. They see Obama in everything, no matter how trivial. They won't be satisfied until everything is slashed and burned just in case there's any relation to Obama.
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
"Who owns 60% of Chrysler? Italy! LOLOLOL"
They aren't built in Italy. C'mon, stev, you can do better than that.
You realize that every automobile on the market was subsidized with government money, either domestically or overseas, right? So unless you build your own cars (and machine your own parts, too), your principles on this issue are meaningless, partisan whining.
savetheseaFeb 7, 2012Buried
They will never admit that the bailout actually worked and we are getting paid back with interest.