By Kyle | February 6, 2012
It’s hard to think of Clint Eastwood as dishonest, isn’t it? But it’s either that or he’s just too dumb to realize his Super Bowl ad was an Obama campaign commercial. He denies here that the ad that David Axelrod and Michael Moore love and Karl Rove dislikes was pro-Obama..
Consider the many left-leaning movies he’s made over the last 20 years, all of which came while Eastwood claimed to be a libertarian or at least a conservative. Maybe Clint just ordered up scripts from people he thought were good writers and didn’t notice the blatant liberal bias. Maybe he thought asking for a script from the guy who wrote “Milk” would provide a historically accurate and fair portrait of J.Edgar Hoover and would not sensationalize scurrilous transvestism rumors in any way, except by quite reasonably showing Hoover weeping at his mama’s death and putting on her dress. Previously I’ve thought he made all these movies because he loves winning Oscars and was willing to put that ahead of principle.
UPDATE: The Times is on the case! “Republicans See Politics in Super Bowl Ad.” Those nutty Republicans! They see politics in an ad that explicitly disdains nasty partisanship (i.e. opposition to current policies), shows (pro-union) crowds demonstrating at the Wisconsin capital and implicitly argues in favor of a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailout of two failing car manufacturers. What’ll Republicans claim next, that Saturday follows Friday? We also learn the Super Bowl has “one of the largest television audiences of the year.” One of the largest! Like, in the top 30 or so? The game had the largest American TV audience ever assembled. Then there’s this master class in prose-making:
It became one of the loudest flashpoints yet in the early re-election campaign of President Obama, providing a reminder, as if one were needed, that in today’s polarized political climate even a tradition as routine as a football championship can be thrust into a partisan light.
It’s a loud flashpoint… Isn’t a flash visual, not aural? A prominent flash would be a really bright one, not a really loud one. Maybe a really loud flash-bang point? But wait, here we are back in “a partisan light.” One of the loudest forms of light? Let’s see…isn’t the Times against private corporations buying up too much political speech? The ad cost maybe $12.8 million. Does it become more okay if it’s taxpayer-funded bailout money authorized by an administration and spent propagandizing on behalf of both the bailout and the administration? Car czar Steve Rattner calls this “a conspiracy theory,” code for lunacy. But when it comes to politics, don’t we more commonly say, simply, “Follow the money”?
Just to tell us what the right answer is, at the very end The Times calls up two Republicans — both of them okay with the ad. So that settles it. As for the transcripts from the other 98 phone calls they made trying to find Republicans who agreed with their spin? Those they threw away.
UPDATE II: Rich Lowry is on the case.