Thursday, 9 February 2012

Required Viewing for OROGs

We commend to the attention of all OROGs  the very brief film-clip that can be joined at the below-included linkage.   This was to have run during the SuperBowl commercial madness in the past, (2004).   The production and direction of the little blurb was paid for and sponsored by our friends at and the estimable financial genius George Soros.
    We have borrowed this link from the ANGLICAN CURMUDGEON which is also found as one of our constant recommended reading alternatives on the list to the right of our screeds.   The Rev. Mr. Haley is that joyful combination of perfect literacy, subdued eloquence, and inspired work-a-day genius that one fears may be soon absent from the American and English-speaking world's scene.
We include the entire article.


Sunday, February 5, 2012

The Superbowl Commercial No One Saw Today

This commercial (H/T: Powerline) was originally made by
George Soros' lapdog, MoveOn, to run during the Superbowl
in 2004, but for various reasons (including its then very political
slant), it did not make the cut. My, my -- how times change.
For some unfathomable reason, George Soros and MoveOn
did not even consider submitting this commercial for the
Superbowl ad competition this year. Please watch it, and
along with me, wonder why -- are their particular bones of
contention becoming increasingly irrelevant to what the rest
of us can see is happening? Here is the 30-second commercial
that -- despite Soros's billions -- did not run in either 2004 or in 2012

Meanwhile, here is a commercial (with Clint Eastwood) that did run this year.
It implies that, under the Obama administration, Detroit and its automobile
industry are about to launch a new "second half" initiative that will
put the (Democratic) team on the scoreboard once again:

Who else but the Democrats under President Obama can claim to have turned
GM and Chrysler around in these trying times? (Of course, the commercial
does not mention Ford, which managed to survive the recession with its own
capital and negotiated union contracts, no thanks to the President.)
And who else but the Democrats under Obama would choose
to make this commercial the one they decided was best to run,
instead of the one George Soros handed them in 2004?
I tell you Republicans out there : you've got to get up
early to gain a march on these Democrats.
RalphM said...
Perhaps I'm unperceptive, but the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial does
not seem to be about a second term for Obama. I don't know Eastwood's
political views and I doubt that most viewers would know either.
To me, the ad seemed to be an inspirational message to have hope
and work for a comeback.
(Obama is not the person that is going to inspire that comeback IMHO.)

A. S. Haley said...
RalphM, Clint Eastwood himself agrees with you.
President Obama's campaign,
on the other hand, does not.
My juxtaposing of the two ads was intended to poke
fun at the Democrats--
that they could not re-run the first ad because it
would embarrass Mr. Obama, but that they could
identify with the second ad because it could be
taken as an endorsement of the results of Mr. Obama's
bailouts of both GM and Chrysler. In doing that
however, they would end up emphasizing
how the bailouts have served mainly to keep
GM and Chrysler alive, so that they could
continue to pay union workers according to their
elaborate contracts. But neither of those companies
nor Mr. Obama has yet devised a means of going
forward profitably in these recession/depression times
while still adhering to those contracts.

You, seeing Clint Eastwood for what he meant to say,
didn't fall for it. But Obama's campaign managers,
wanting to hitch their candidate to an icon like Eastwood, did.

Links to this post

Ad Orientem: Truth in Advertising

Addenda:   Posted during the mid-afternoon of 9 February 2012

The Old Gringo said...
There is no place to hide. No one can reasonably say that the Clint Eastwood clip was not a campaign advertisement for BHO. The dastardly take-over of the two companies, Fiat-Chrysler and Government Motors resulted in the cancellation of all preferred shares of stock, thereby punishing those who had the least to do with the companies' failures. Preferred stock is that which is most frequently found in the "widows' and orphans'" portions of long-term, "ultra-secure" stocks designed to produce modest but sure dividends. One can check how many mutual funds are still in existence since the expropriation and subsequent cancellation of these shares of stock. The number of Mutual Funds have been reduced by almost 40% since the expropriation. The most innocent of the financial instruments were the ones most punished by this marxist administration.
Clint Eastwood, as have I, perhaps has become a bit unclear in his thinking now, at this stage in his life. During the expropriations and subsequent delivery of the two corporations into the hands of extremely corrupt labour unions and the central government, Rowdy Yates knew that these were bad moves, and he said as much, frequently.

Forgive my long-windedness and abrasiveness. Thank you for your kind attention and time.