I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time.
You're a very talented parrot.
How can I be parroting, when that was my interpretation of the ad while I was watching it
? I didn't go check with some GOP sources to see what they thought. I saw it and when "holy hell? How'd they get Clint Eastwood to do a pro-Obama campaign ad?". Honestly, what did you think when you saw it? Can you honestly say that you didn't think it reflected positively on current economic policies in the context of economic recovery?
Even if you didn't think "this is an ad for the Obama campaign" you had to think it was a positive message about the process of recovery in Detroit, right? I mean, that's what it was about. Now maybe Eastwood isn't familiar with how the Detroit recovery came about. Maybe he was sold a line about how they did it all themselves (why else do the commercial if he's stated publicly in the past he opposed the bail outs?). Who knows. The point is that there's no way to watch that commercial and fail to get that it's about how America can recover from its current economic woes by using Detroit as a model.
If you don't see the political connotations, it's likely because you aren't familiar with how Detroit "recovered" in the first place. But ignorance on your part doesn't change the issue here.
For instance, for it to be a trick it would require that he had gotten his lines the day of recording, had no insight or interaction with the rest of production, and still had not seen the commercial itself to release his statement about it not being political.
Um... Which is pretty much how commercials are done. Are you aware how common it is for actors to not realize the content or message of an ad they're in until it airs? Sure. They should insist on seeing the completed product and having executive control over the content. But most either can't do that, or don't have the time to do that. He was probably hired to do the spot. Was told that it was about American can do, and a rallying cry to Americans to get off their butts and work their way out of our current problems. He was probably told all sorts of stuff that appealed to his own personal politics. And even if he saw the result (or a version of it), he would still interpret what he saw within the context of what he had been told it was about.
But when a huge number of people, unbiased by what they think the message is supposed to be, see it and come to the same "OMG, it's a pro-stimulus ad" result, what he thought it was about is kinda irrelevant.
See, if you could
think for yourself, that scenario would mean that either he did
make a political ad, but that he did it voluntarily with no coercion and he just can't stand Republicans anymore, or that it wasn't political at all but gosh darn the Republicans need something
to liberalbash with and they had nothing legitimate in their ****
Or... Some clever ad execs figure out a way to make Eastwood think he was doing a pro-workethic piece, while actually doing a pro-stimulus piece. This sort of thing happens all the time. It happens in Hollywood even more often. Want to know how many authors and writers pull their names from Hollywood films because the result, while technically based on their work, presents it in a way that the author doesn't agree with? Lots. Yes, that's a technical term.
I know you'll try to sneak in a third option...
Sneak? You mean the option I started with? Way to cover all the bases there!!!
[quote]... but the only other options require most people to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes.
No. It requires that people only be aware of some common patterns out there. How many times on this forum
has the whole "OMG! Here's a conservative saying he agrees with us liberals!" been used to support something? Lots (yeah, there's that term again!). It's a common liberal tactic. Make what they're doing seem perfectly normal and acceptable and make anyone who disagrees look like some radical. Getting someone like Eastwood to do this spot is a huge coup for the liberal media. You really don't see that?
If it were some liberal mouthpiece doing the exact same spot, it would have been dismissed as liberal political rhetoric. But you get a staunch conservative like Eastwood to do it? That means that the stimulus really must have bi-partisan support. And Obama must be on the right track. Cause we all know that Eastwood isn't some liberal mouthpiece, right!
You really don't see that? Perhaps you should take off the blinders. What do you think the whole bit Joph dug out about how Eastwood doesn't agree with the GOP on **** marriage was about? It's about trying to argue that the GOP has lost it's way. Even other conservatives think they're wrong about this, that, and the other thing. And look! Here's Eastwood agreeing with the stimulus bill! So they must be wrong about opposition to that too.