FOTH:
PT was probably right at population levels at his time of the early 1900's.
Now with a much bigger, and growing population, he's wrong! Have to work the math, but would prob be a sucker born like every 21.3 seconds! haha
.
That's an awesome parody.
I don't know what it is with parody's. Because when they are good, I just can't stop laughing! That one is pretty much dead on the $$$

A parody of "Halftime in America" from Reason.TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_8qCbHs...

P.T. Barnum was dead wrong. They're being born a whole lot faster than one every minute.

Also keep in mind that the 'great American'-governmnet bailed out Chrysler, is now something like 60% owned by the great American FIAT (Fix It Again Tony) out of Italy...So "we" pulling together in the 2nd half, I guess includes the bankrupt Italians!

"Most curious is whether the ad is propaganda to "sell" the righteousness of past bailouts (they) or whether it is propaganda to soften Americans (we) to similar planned government initiatives in the future."
.
FOTH
I would say a bit of BOTH!
However; more so to the 1st part of your query...(To justify the past bailouts)... As MANY Americans are still very upset over that. From what I have gathered, much of the 'success' with GM and Chrysler is from expanding international sales, and not domestic. Many Americans still have the: SCREW YOU mood toward buying a Government Motors, or Chrysler Republic vehicle. I forgot to mention in my last posting, that also a TON of local dealerships got HOSED by the governmnet take over. The governmnet now loves to propagandize all the 'success' of their noble actions, conveniently forgetting to mention the millions who got SCREWED who held bonds, worked or owned a local dealership, ext.
If the international market takes a hit, I suspect both GM and Chrysler will be right back where they were a few years ago...In the heavy red.....
That is when the 2nd part of your proposal (propaganda to soften Americans (we) to similar planned government initiatives in the future) will then come into play!

I'm imagining a screaming Chairman at the next Chrysler board meeting:

"@#*^/¿! Next year we do a 30 second ad with a big-chested model and a speeding car with flaming exhaust jumping a stack of chicken coops, landing on the edge of the cliff. And there's gonna be only ONE \~()$% word of dialog - 'Hemi'! You got that?"

We need to stop trying to read into things to much.

Do I like that our tax dollars went to fund a union run company? Nope
Do I like the job obummer is doing? Nope
Do I think that ad was a high five for the dems? Nope it was an ad with a big name trying to sell cars.

I especially love the Rush version when Eastwood says we'll kick Obama's skinny but back to Chicago.

Take it for what it says!
This country is in trouble. There are two teams who want their way or nothing for the fate of this country. It is time for the American PEOPLE to come together, and get us out of this mess. It is time we, the people tell those "career politicians" ( of all parties) to get back to basics ( representing the people who elected them)or get the hell out of the way.
One parties ideas on some things is not so different from the others.. but endless hours are spent arguing those small points, and nothing gets done....and the people suffer due to this.

Get back to basics people! Tell your elected officials they work for US, not the other way around.
This country can do great things when we put our collective minds to it, we have done it before, we can do it again!

F'dup, Eastwood is considerably sharper than you.
Nobody "snickers" him.
;-)

Thanks, SuperDave; fixed now.
Greg Peck

I always have a hard time reading an article when there's a typo in the first sentence - arghhh.

I share Kiowamohican's political philosophy on bailouts but I believe the intended purpose of this ad is to "sell" a philosophy exactly opposite to ours: "They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together."

When you are paying $12 million to run a two minute TV spot, you won't be careless with your message. Each and every word will be carefully chosen to convey that message. Eastwood's soliloquy contains five (5) occurrences of the word "they" and fourteen (14) occurrences of the word "we". That would be an astounding number of collective pronouns for an advertisement intending to sell machines! If that's what the ad were trying to "sell", that is.

Anyone spending $12 million to publicly broadcast a message containing that many collective pronouns is doing so to influence public opinion. When someone publicly calls for collective action, such statement is inherently political, especially when a distinction is drawn between "we" and "they". How often do you hear people discuss what "we" should be doing about AT&T's dropped calls or what "we" should be doing about the high price of an iPhone, etc? Pretty silly. When anyone asks the rhetorical question as to what "we" could or should be doing, government action is implied. Government action is political.

So, I ask myself, who comprises the collective "we" and who comprises the collective "they"? Eastwood's soliloquy is consistent with regard to "we" but a little vague with regard to "they". His opening sentences frame the topic and set the tone: “It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker rooms discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It’s halftime in America, too." No ambiguity there; two football teams are in battle for victory, each team intent on defeating the other. If that is supposed to be a metaphor for America then who is supposed to be America's metaphorical opponent here? It doesn't specify. At $6 million dollars per minute, you can bet that omission was intentional. Who are "they"? People who need "our" help? The important message is that "we" forget our differences and pull together with regard to "them".

Most curious is whether the ad is propaganda to "sell" the righteousness of past bailouts (they) or whether it is propaganda to soften Americans (we) to similar planned government initiatives in the future. Time will tell. The one question I do NOT have is whether or not this ad is "political".

Karl Rove speaks and everyone jumps. That guy is an idiot.

Yes.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3192.html "DIRTY HARRY IS A LIBERTARIAN"

[The guy in the White House may not be a libertarian, but Clint Eastwood is. In USA Weekend, Ol' Dirty Harry tells us: "I don't see myself as conservative, but I'm not ultra-leftist. ... I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live."

And also unlike the guy in the White House, Clint adopts a laissez-faire view on same-sex marriages. "From a libertarian point of view," says Clint, "you would say, 'Yeah? So what?' You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want -- as long as they're not harming people." ]

(Other references to Clint Eastwood's unique and enigmatic political philosophy available by request. :-)

Clint Eastwood starred in a confusing tv ad. Confusing because he didn't rub the viewers noses like they were bad puppies in a product name or trademark within the first 5 seconds of the commercial. Fewer Americans are smart enough or patient enough today to understand "subtle". If they can't label an idea or concept from a message within 5 seconds, it must be something bad from an "enemy", because their friends don't have the smarts or patience to do subtle and their masters won't confuse the poor dears by doing subtle.

I don't know if it was intended to be political, but it sure came off like it. Nonetheless. I thought the ad was well done. It was similar to the old Reagan campaign ads, that made you feel good about America, and it's future. The fact Eastwood is a GREAT orator (much like Reagan was) gave it that great effect!
.
That said, the bailouts can NOT ever be justified, if you are one who supports true liberty, and is against the big industry-government oligarchy. If normal bankruptcy would have been allowed to proceeded, they would have done just as good when they became restructured-rebuilt. People have this notion that bankruptcy means you are flat out done-out of business for good. Often it just means you restructure you company-debt-and leadership. That is exactly what the autos ended up doing, but it was via governmnet planers, and not normal market conditions, which is how bankruptcy court works when companies go under.
.
What is NEVER talked about in all this 'success' now, is the fact that MILLIONS of Americans got screwed in the governmnet take over, if they held GM bonds. I am amazed just talking to neighbors, and locals, of how many around here held GM BONDS (NOT stock)...When you file bankruptcy, bond holders are one of thee 1st in line to get paid. When the governmnet took over, all the bond holders just got kicked to the curb, and lost out on almost everything! The actions the governmnet took toward the bond holders upon take over were illegal by any established legal precedent, and borderline criminal.

I think Clint Eastwood should run for president!!!

afterall, Chrysler seems to be able "to author a remarkable story of recovery", as stated in the article in the Gazette today ( http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2012/feb... ), they are increasing their production in Belvidere. This is great news! Let's hope that it will be a small portion of what our community needs to bounce back from this economic tragedy. I think it was a portrayal of Chrysler's commitment to America. Why spit in their face over their commercial? I guess I don't get it. I think their advertising agents need some props, as well. Well done, Chrysler. Well done.

I don't think it was political, either. I think hdonlybob is right. It WAS a commercial, but you didn't know what the "product" being sold was...until the very end. That being said, I think the "product" they are trying to sell...and we should buy into: AMERICA. We have too much division at the state level and at the federal level. We MUST come together even if that means we have to compromise and make concessions TOGETHER to work BEST for the ENTIRE country. (Sorry for the "JOHN EYSTER speak" there...but it IS important to stress... :)

Eastword is not an independent, according to him. He has voted Republican since the 1950's, with the exception of a vote for Ross Perot.

Nothing in the add is political. Karl Rove is an idiot.

By the way, Clint Eastwood donated all the money he was paid to charity.

I think Clint Eastwood read the lines somebody wrote and was payed a lot of money. My guess is that Chrysler Corp. did the ad with the purpose of selling more cars and they did a good job.

Leave it to Karl Rove and the right wing ilk to cry politics.

hdonlybob is correct.

I think you can't take a dump anymore without some idiot calling it political.
It was a great add about what America is all about...coming back from every blow we have taken as a the wonderful Nation we are.
No more, no less.

I think it was political and Eastwood was snickered. Heck he is getting old and maybe not thinking so fast on his feet anymore.

I view Eastwood as a somewhat unpredictable independent who varies from conservative and libertarian. I got the impression he was subliminally channeling the spirit of Ronald Reagan. As for the overall ad itself, it left me with a very clear impression of being "political", whether or not that was Eastwood's intent.