Clint Eastwood: The New Face of the Chrysler Bailouts?

Clint Eastwood is supposedly one of America’s most famous libertarians. You can imagine how crushed I was to see this disgrace of a commercial during half-time at the Super Bowl:

This could have been a Barack Obama campaign video as much as a Chrysler commercial.

Oh Clint, tell me you don’t actually believe this. Tell me it was just a job, and a particularly financially rewarding one at that.

Then again, considering the wholesale adoption of Communist propaganda and smears in Eastwood’s biopic of J. Edgar Hoover, maybe Clint was just using his great acting skills and pretending to be a libertarian all along.


UPDATE: Eastwood’s manager has said it wasn’t a political thing, merely the man saying to America, ‘Get yourselves together – all of you – and make this a second half.’ I find that hard to swallow. It’s clearly praising the bailouts when it holds up Detroit as a success story. I’ve been showing this video to people across the political spectrum who didn’t see it during the game, and asking the opinion of those who did. Everyone so far has seen it as endorsing the bailouts, libertarian and non-libertarian. Now, Eastwood may not have intended this but it was grossly irresponsible of him if he cares about liberty.


About Cranky Notions
Reactionary. That fella from the Norris scandal.

7 Responses to Clint Eastwood: The New Face of the Chrysler Bailouts?

  1. Ted says:

    Good ol Clint

    Even though he is an old guy he still looks like he could beat the crap out of you.

    I could see how the ad could be interpreted as pro bailout, pro Obama, pro state intervention. Or perhaps it is just a good recovery story, last I had heard, Detroit was on the brink of failure as a viable city.

    I still love the guy though

    • Detroit is dead. Maybe you could say undead, functioning like a zombie. It ain’t coming back anytime soon.

      This is Detroit.

      I like Eastwood too, though some of his recent projects are not to my liking. Not just ‘J. Edgar’, but that Nelson Mandela propaganda piece also.

      The only way to save the American auto industry was to let the Big Three go bankrupt and have the entire industry fundamentally restructured. As I said to 40 Shades below, even when GM was turning a profit in the early 2000s, it was still losing money on every car it sold, making it up on financing in its GMAC division. If we heed the Obama administration’s desire for Americans to purchase lots more GMs, Fords and Chryslers, the markets would have to create yet another highly leveraged ticking time bomb of loans, much like the subprime mortgage fiasco.

      My two-cents is that Detroit and the American manufacturers need to sell cars to the Chinese and Indians currently riding around on bikes, and begin digging ourselves out of our massive trade deficit. America needs companies that operate like Tata Motors, not like General Motors.

  2. 40 Shades of Green says:

    Struck me as Capitalism at work.

    Use whatever works to shift the product.

    Partiotism always works.

    Also, if you are to take your logic to its conclusion, nobody should advertise or promote a state owned company.

    Or is it just that you don’t want Dirty Harry doing it.

    The more cars sold by Chrysler, the quicker it will be back in private hands.

    40 Shades

    • Ah, the irony of appealing to patriotism when Chrysler is mostly owned by an Italian company and run by a Canadian.

      The Wall Street Journal yesterday was proclaiming the success of the GM bailout, because GM will have about $8 billion in profit this year, due to the government handing them $50 billion, and because their restructuring they now have zero debt. I guess anything is possible when you throw enough money at it.

      However, if the government sold their 23% stock ownership in GM it would result in a $10 billion loss.

      This is the definition of Crony Capitalism. Bailing out the big dogs to ensure they can create massive profits.

      GM and Chrysler should have been divided like a cake, or meat between the hounds. That would have really saved the American auto industry, which needs fundamental restructuring. Even when GM was profitable in the early 2000s, it was still losing money on every car it sold, making it up on financing in its GMAC division.

  3. Rob Harris says:

    Its hard to accept the advert wasn’t political. As far as I can see the advert clearly intended to draw on the imagery of the forthcoming election (two teams in the locker room talking strategy, which way will people go, etc.) considering its an election year when the topic is in the news constantly. By citing Detroit it does sound like a subtle endorsement of Obama and his message at this point in time. On principle its bad form for a big company like Chrysler to be pushing a political message that furtively favours one side but Eastwood is of course entitled to endorse whoever he wants. If they need another bail out down the road its more likely with Obama. To do it so furtively, in a highly emotive advert that is laced with patriotism makes it worse.

    • You’re right on everything. By portraying Detroit as a great success story it is effectively endorsing the bailouts of the Big Three and saying such ‘pulling together’ (a.k.a. the Average Joe being forced to give his money to big business) is a bipartisan priority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: