Tuesday, February 7, 2012

2012 is Halftime in America and Halftime for Obama's Presidency

Republican actor Clint Eastwood’s controversial 2012 Super Bowl ad titled “Halftime in America” is a great example of President Obama’s presidency and a reason to support his re-election

Who would take their first string quarterback out at halftime when they were winning the game and replace him (Obama) with second string quarterbacks (Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich)?

President Obama’s latest approval rating of 50 percent, an 8.3 percent unemployment rate which is the lowest since 2008, 250,000 private sector jobs were created in January 2012, and the Dow Jones reaching its highest level (12,862 points) since 2008 all support voters keeping him in office as this nation’s quarterback and Commander-in Chief on November 6, 2012.

Vera Richardson
Preview my book “Screwed by Former Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer”

Preview additional pages and buy on Amazon. com


  1. Clint Eastwood is a republican. George W. Bush who was president in a lame duck portion of his presidency acceded to Obama's desire to save GM and Chrysler. Ford did not need assistance as it had bet the farm and borrowed very heavily when money was still available in an amazing piece of foresight. The auto giant's survived and prospered with temporary government assistance despite the republican parties called for it to deservedly fail. Eastwood makes a non-political upbeat message and Rove's head explodes because it is a positive message for an industry saved by Obama and it succeeded hence his view that it is political. Eastwood sets him straight. Then this Democratic version comes out and it shows the president taking credit for his faith in the industry. Deservedly so and only because the Republican's had the opportunity to to stand in support of the action in a non-partisan way at the time and they jeered from the cheep seats and were proven wrong.

  2. Thanks for your comment pdq sailor. I would also add that the ad could remind voters that Romney opposed saving GM and Chrysler. That fact sort of discredits Romney's claim to know how to create jobs and save failing companies and corporations.

    Vera Richardson

    1. Problem was and remains that President Obama has not acted on a golden opportunity that was and is sitting in his lap. The auto bail out provided funds for a small car company as well - Tesla Motors. The $400 million dollar load guarantee will put in place a factory that will produce 20,000 cars per year. With the US and Canadian governments owning still the largest stake in GM the means of production are basically still in government hands. So is the technology developed by Tesla to produce an almost perfect sedan that is a game changer in terms of using domestic produced electricity and replacing off shore oil. It would be perfect if it had a battery pack that could be swapped out and was standardized under the Israeli model of swapping out a discharged battery with a full one at a "filling" station in minutes - effectively providing un limited range. GM could produce 20,000,000 cars per year not 20,000 - and there are people out there who need the jobs. The Fed could provide financing for the sale of these cars and replacement of the oil burning stock of auto's now on the roads. The cars could be exported all over the world.

      It is not like the basic model for the economic use has not been done before. In WWII the car plants were diverted to war production from 1941-1945 - this is no less of a war effort.

      All the pieces are in Obama's hands - it is just the will to proceed that is needed. America needs this solution and it fixes a great deal in one shot.

    2. It is not only Romney who opposed the rescue of GM and Chrysler - name me one Republican that was for it? Bush did it at Obama's behest simply because he was the president elect and while it was technically Bush's watch it was Obama's administration that would have to live with the consequences of the action. Well if it was Obama that would have to live with the consequences then clearly it is Obama that should be given the credit for making the right decision. People point out that Ford did not need a bailout but that is because the CEO of Ford was possessed of insight that the other's did not possess - he did all his borrowing just before the meltdown of the capital markets when he still could do so and so because of this INCREDIBLE foresight Ford was able to weather the storm with those amassed resources. Look gas prices flew upwards then the capital markets exploded and the money supply for the economy dried up, housing prices tanked and there was no cash on hand for customers to buy new cars so the tap of cash simply stopped running for an extended period of time for the auto makers. What Obama and any one familiar with the car business knows is that the base replacement rate for cars averages one million units per month. Now people can delay replacement with repair of older cars but on an economic basis every car purchase postponed is one in the bank to be cashed in later. A car purchase can be postponed but it can not be prevented - sooner or later it equals out. Short term help is thus easy to justify to prop up a vital national industry. Obama made a good bet, a smart bet and a safe bet. Republicans do not see this stabilization role for government - too bad because this is a textbook example of how a good bet pays off. Another historical view was the earlier bailout of Chrysler and that one worked too. Good industries are worth saving and the job was done right. Don't agree with me? Put it to a vote with the auto workers who have jobs at Chrysler and GM and tell me what the cumulative payroll taxes they contribute to the country is and also tell me what the unemployment benefits saved have been then we can talk about just how good a deal Obama really cut for the American Taxpayer. Don't leave out Canada because Canada contributed towards this program on a pro rata basis - these companies have a substantial presence there too and so this was also appropriate.

      It was a textbook good deal and Obama deserves the credit for it.

      So even if Mr. Eastwood did not make a political ad and even if Rove's head explodes over it - too bad - if the shoe fits wear it.

    3. On 9/22/12 I read your wonderful comments. I hope that you are still supporting Pres Obama.