Patterico's Pontifications

9/27/2011

White House Gets Ford to Pull Anti-Bailout TV Ad?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 11:37 am

[Posted by Karl]

The rightosphere is buzzing about the claim made by Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes:

As part of a [Ford] campaign featuring “real people” explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named “Chris” says he “wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government,” according the text of the ad, launched in early September.

“I was going to buy from a manufacturer that’s standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That’s what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta’ pick yourself up and go back to work.”

That’s what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early ’09 and again when the ad flap arose.

Howes may be wrong about direct causality.  FoMoCo says the campaign continues to run, although the specific ad was taken “out of rotation after 4 weeks which is consistent with the typical lifecycle for the campaign.”  And contrary to some claims on Twitter, even that ad remains on Ford’s YouTube channel.

However, that does not mean that the Obama Administration did not gripe to Ford about the ad.  The widely-mocked AttackWatch has been eager to defend the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  Moreover, touting these bailouts is a key to Obama’s effort to hold onto the Great Lakes region in 2012.  Ford pointing out that it is easily outperforming GM and Chrysler is not helpful to Obama.  Neither is pointing out that the bailout saved nowhere near the million jobs claimed.  Indeed, it is likely that a regular bankruptcy would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.  The only difference is that Obama intervened to bail out his union support at the UAW, rather than the companies’ creditors.  With a economy mired in malaise overall, Obama does not need Ford reminding people that taxpayers were put on the hook to boost his re-election effort.

Update: FWIW, it looks like Howe says a Ford VP confirms his claim.

Update 2: Scott Monty, head of social media for FoMoCo: “We did not pull the ad under pressure.”

Update 3: WH flack Dan Pfieffer denies they pressured Ford… which isn’t a denial of complaints.

–Karl

45 Responses to “White House Gets Ford to Pull Anti-Bailout TV Ad?”

  1. They told me that if I voted for McCain as President, we’d see the White House suppressing dissent in this country.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Paging Luigi Vercotti, to the Red Courtesy phone:

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  3. Buy a Chevy Volt to save Obama’s job!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  4. Suppress, fold and mutilate those sonsabitches who don’t support Obama.

    #newtone

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  5. I always wondered what it would be like to live in a country as fascism descended

    But what I can tell you is how many more cars I will buy what a disgusting fat-ass united autoworker whore has pawed all over

    that would be zero, and I don’t care if it’s a ford or not

    gack – done – over it

    plus the new camaro is gayer than sunday morning mani/pedis with putin

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  6. I see this as an unforced error on the Obama administration. The auto bailouts took place in the last days of Bush. To take an ad critical of competitor’s bailouts under the previous administration as a personal attack at the current White House seems, I dunno, stupid and somewhat vain.

    So, he wants credit for all of the good effects of the previous administration’s efforts, but none of the blame.

    Yay, the Michael Scott presidency.

    Hadlowe (163d77)

  7. I’am sorry did you have a manicure with putin and he rejected your advances?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  8. For you Crappyfeet.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  9. Has anyone asked Carnie, or Ford, if the Admin has reached out to Ford, or discussed it in any way? The guy in the commercial, has he had any blowback from the commercial?

    JD (352bcf)

  10. i blame the dirty janitors

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  11. The view on this-If you keep criticizing Obama i will walk off the view you islamophobes.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  12. See the U.S.A. in your Subaru…..

    Huey (ddf1a4)

  13. What do you expect when you have an Administration that is penis-in-condom hand-in-glove with the United Auto Workers?

    When I bought a new truck, in April of 2010, the bailout was on my mind, and that was one reason I never even looked at a GM or Chrysler product; I bought a Ford!

    The pissed off Dana (3e4784)

  14. Comment by Hadlowe — 9/27/2011 @ 12:16 pm

    I would remind you that only part of the bailout went to Detroit (GM/Chrysler) under Bush, the majority was forwarded by Obama, including the corruption of the BK rules to reward the UAW, and rape the bond-holders.

    ………………..

    Now, it looks like Ford has demonstrated their spinelessness, and unworthiness of further consumer support.
    If they were pressured (threatened) by the UAW over this ad campaign, they should get the facts out, so that consumers will know what is happening.
    Otherwise, perhaps they should relocate all of their production to China, not just any “Green” vehicles.

    I’m sure Henry-I is spinning like a dervish.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (ade72a)

  15. Missiles have disappeared in Libya…………….who wants to bet the anti-qaddaffi rebels stole them?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  16. The White House denied that they pressured Ford to pull the ad? Yup, I believe that! And they got a Ford minion to deny that they pulled the ad under pressure? Did you really expect anything else?

    Call it the Chicago way.

    The Dana who wasn't born yesterday (3e4784)

  17. Obama and Deion Sanders should get married.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  18. After hearing Ford was the one company of the Big Three not getting a bail-out, I bought some of their stock, at around $3.70. It’s now back down to $10. Maybe it’s time to sell.

    Karl L (ff486c)

  19. My uncle bought a bunch of Ford stock when it was about a dollar.

    Karl (f07e38)

  20. What is it gorebots-the ozone is depleting or their is too much?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  21. The WH is showing their authotorian streak.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  22. What about the story rescued GM is at half its post salvation high, 3/5 its IPO price?

    What happens when unions declare bancruptcy?

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  23. Update 3: WH flack Dan Pfieffer denies they pressured Ford… which isn’t a denial of complaints.

    did they deny that any communication was made or did they deny any pressure when the request was made?

    joe (93323e)

  24. Running a nation is a bit different from running a city, a community or a union.

    It’s harder to silence the critics, try as they might.

    I just hope for the nation, we never elect another person from the Chicago Democrat/union machine.

    Ag80 (9a213d)

  25. Exactly.

    But its a democraps god given right to be bullys./Sarcasm obviously

    DohBiden (d54602)

  26. joe,

    WH denied “pressuring” Ford. Have not denied contacting Ford, afaik.

    Karl (37b303)

  27. Look there was no pressure on Ford to pull the commercial. All that happened was I mentioned that the WH was very good terms with the UAW. I also mentioned that Ford’s contract with the UAW was up for negotitation (at the time, right now the contract should be signed monday). I also mentioned that the WH was upset about the commercial. There were no threats or pressure, I just presented some facts.

    For those of you who want to spin this into some kinda of conspiracy I have a few facts you should keep in mind, no pressure or anything, just some information to keep in mind. The WH is on good terms with the Teamster’s. Teamsters are boisterous people who sometimes beat the snot out of people they disagree with (a shout out for Don Adams of Philadelphia). The government will might persecute mistakenly prosecute you for bruising the knuckles of the poor teamsters who do this sort of thing resulting in large legal bills even though a jury will no doubt throw the case out in minutes. The WH is beginning to find all this talk about pressure and threats to be an annoyance. Did I mention that the WH is on good terms with the teamster’s union? You know the FBI has gotten real good at tracking down internet posters even those using anonymous web servers. Speaking of the FBI, they do seem to have a problem these days with leaks. Did I mention that the WH is on good terms with the teamster’s union? No threats or pressure, just some information which may have slipped your mind when you start talking about the WH pressuring Ford.

    White House Rabid Response Team (2f2a28)

  28. Just like the muslims……….who worship a different god than us.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  29. WH denied “pressuring” Ford. Have not denied contacting Ford, afaik.

    Comment by Karl — 9/27/2011 @ 7:40 pm

    Very lawyerish. Don’t deny the facts, just the editorial interpretation. If the WH wants to discuss something they disagree with, and this causes a company to change what they were doing, which is what the WH intended to happen, is that pressure? Well, that’s just an opinion, and can be plausibly denied all day long.

    We have a pack of frat boys and scumbags in our white house, and they don’t take anything seriously but reelection.

    I’m with Happyfeet. Not another UAW product.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  30. You’re being too charitable, Dustin, don’t forget the Auto Task Force, which closed thriving Republican owned dealerships, in favor of struggling
    Democrat ones,

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  31. That’s a good reminder of yet another serious and unamerican action by this administration. We’re all Chicagoan now.

    Makes you want to pick up a new Gibson in your new Toyota… in Texas.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  32. Another lawyerish example of ‘leadership’ is Sheila Jackson Lee’s recent screech that we must ‘buy african american’ and ‘stop playing racial politics’ and make sure we’re hiring the right racial groups which she “doesn’t consider affirmative action”.

    Racism, cronyism, undue influence, and corruption are baked into the cake, and we’re haggling over the words written with the frosting.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  33. This is more of them, playing favorites with disastrous consequences

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576596601891250510.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  34. Correct me if I am wrong but although TARP was passed under Bush, it was intended for financial institutions not auto companies. Bush did not allocate all the funds and left some in the kitty for Obama to finish the ‘rescue’ of our financial system. Obama changed the purpose and used some of the remaining TARp funds to screw the bond holders and stock holders of GM and Chrysler in order to reward unions unfairly and without regard to the rule of law. At the same time nonunion employees like those at Delphi lost their pensions. This auto ‘bailout’ was not inniciated by Bush, it is all at Obama’s feet, including the illegality! Obama changed the prupose and parameters of TARP. So explain to me why several posters seem to blame this fiasco on Bush?

    Texas Mom 2012 (cee89f)

  35. BTW, I had GM and Ford stock… Made enough on my Ford stock to more than cover the disaster of my GM stock. And I bought a Ford Expedition in 2008 only because it was significantly cheaper than a Chevy… Because we have had to replace the transmissions in our last four Fords at around 60K.

    Texas Mom 2012 (cee89f)

  36. So explain to me why several posters seem to blame this fiasco on Bush?

    Comment by Texas Mom 2012 — 9/28/2011 @ 7:48 am

    Bush did sign about 35 billion to bailout GMAC and Chrysler Financial.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  37. Possibly, but it was Obama who took it upon himself
    to sack the GM CEO, and replace him with one of his
    own, (and Romney did support that move)

    ian cormac (ed5f69)

  38. Comment by Dustin — 9/28/2011 @ 8:21 am

    Bush/Paulson: TARP funds being used to shore-up financial institutions that lend money to car purchasers – a designed function of the program.

    Obama/Geithner: TARP funds used to wrest ownership away from stockholders, and defraud bondholders, while transferring control to the Federal Government and the UAW.

    Yes, Bush Bad!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (3c5177)

  39. Drew, of course you’re right.

    There is a massive categorical difference between Bush bailout out what amounts to GM’s bank when he bailed out banks, and Obama reinventing the law to pick winners and losers in a widespread and severe manner.

    I’m simply explaining to what extent Bush did bailout GM. If you think all government bailouts are bad, indeed, yes, Bush Bad. But what makes the GM bailout different (and particularly bad) than the others is the stuff that Bush had no role in.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  40. How long before Jeremiah Wright blames da joooooooooooos for all this.

    And yes Jews can discriminate against other Jews…………although this is not always true.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  41. Dustin, I didn’t think I needed a “sarc” tag after “Bush Bad”.
    For tiffy, my sarc tag would be a size-12 brogan up its backside.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (3c5177)

  42. Dustin, I didn’t think I needed a “sarc” tag after “Bush Bad”.

    Of course you didn’t.

    Dustin (b2fb78)

  43. This thread is like Teh One his own bad self:

    Nuthin’ to it.

    Icy Texan (eafd99)

  44. 4 weeks is a pretty long time to run an ad like that. These days, you run ads to chum the waters, hoping to drive folks online to see the ad on youtube or facebook or wherever. The ad is still on facebook and youtube, so it hasn’t been “pulled.”

    carlitos (49ef9f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4266 secs.