# Clint Eastwood - Chrysler "Half Time" Ad



## JordanPond (Feb 5, 2012)

Who saw the Chrysler "Half Time" add with Clint Eastwood? That had was one of the most powerful, emotional ads I've seen. Quoting my wife... "He could run for President on that"


----------



## grapeman (Feb 5, 2012)

It was good, but man is he looking ancient!


----------



## JordanPond (Feb 5, 2012)

Yeah, he's got a few miles on him. So, who does his cosmetic surgery?


----------



## GerardVineyard (Feb 5, 2012)

Ad was good except for the part saying Detroit had fought it's way back, instead of saying it was bailed out by the Gov't.


----------



## JordanPond (Feb 5, 2012)

We'll need to see how things look in a few years. The Detroit 3 are all heading in a good direction. I'll stick with the fighting back. They all have product lines that are much more interesting now then in 2008. Are they back? Don't know, depends on how big their heads get.


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Feb 6, 2012)

GerardVineyard said:


> Ad was good except for the part saying Detroit had fought it's way back, instead of saying it was bailed out by the Gov't.



Ford didn't take the money. Props to them. In fact, I think they are doing the best with their cars over the other two without taking any money.


----------



## Runningwolf (Feb 6, 2012)

Midwest Vintner said:


> Ford didn't take the money. Props to them. In fact, I think they are doing the best with their cars over the other two without taking any money.



I agree with you on that!


----------



## AlFulchino (Feb 6, 2012)

indeed the very best of the ads.....the rest as a whole w few exceptions were lame

if the ads are any indication of the ad talent in this country then we have problems

i agree w Rich...Clint was looking a bit long in the tooth, far cry from his Rawhide days.....arent we all  all i could think was really young people were looking at the tv and saying..who is the old guy?


----------



## GerardVineyard (Feb 6, 2012)

Runningwolf said:


> I agree with you on that!




I'll agree with that one also .....


----------



## Julie (Feb 6, 2012)

Ford did not take the government bailout because they charged way more for a vehicle than the others! So the other two companies are penalize because their vehicles cost less? So what you guys are saying is if you could not afford a Ford then go buy a foreign vehicle because those where going dirt cheap? And so what that someone took a bailout! Those companies still had to look at their companies and do a re-org. You guys are all about looking and the storefront. The bailout was not free money, they have to pay it back.


----------



## AlFulchino (Feb 6, 2012)

"Ford did not take the government bailout because they charged way more for a vehicle than the others! So the other two companies are penalize because their vehicles cost less? "

no they are penalized because they and their unions were not operating the business in a survivable manner...

because Ford charged more per car does not mean they were ripping people off, afterall, if all cars were equal then people would just go to the cheaper priced cars....obviously Ford and their customers are happier w their relationship...and in the end this means Ford asked NOTHING of you and i, the taxpayer....i think that is pretty darn good...

"You guys are all about looking and the storefront."

i think you may have changed subjects...are you now talking about the godaddy ads ?


----------



## BobF (Feb 7, 2012)

Julie said:


> Ford did not take the government bailout because they charged way more for a vehicle than the others! So the other two companies are penalize because their vehicles cost less? So what you guys are saying is if you could not afford a Ford then go buy a foreign vehicle because those where going dirt cheap? And so what that someone took a bailout! Those companies still had to look at their companies and do a re-org. You guys are all about looking and the storefront. The bailout was not free money, they have to pay it back.



Yes, they should be 'penalized' b/c their cars cost too little to support their business model.


----------



## Julie (Feb 7, 2012)

roflmao, ok this is how I look at this, which is better Ford or Chevy? That argument has been going on for years. I have own, Fords, Chevys and Chryslers and loved them all. But each company caters to comsumers that love their product. Not all consumers are going to like everything about one product, that is why all three companies are loved, they cater to different personalities. Just because Ford did not take the bailout does not make them the superior company.

This post started about a commercial and I loved that commericial. I did not look at it as Clint Eastwood talking about Detroit but about companies that got knock on the backside and pulled themselves up. And by company, I am talking about the workers, plant managers and every employee. They all needed to pull together to make this happen and they did. And that was what this commercial was about, it was about how this country was started.


----------



## milbrosa (Feb 7, 2012)

I was at a Dodge / Jeep dealer picking up some parts for my Cherokee yesterday. I happened to take a look at the sticker on a Dodge 2500 with Cummins diesel engine, and I about fainted. Talk about sticker shock. $62K for that truck. 

You can buy a decent house for that in some parts of the country.

My next vehicle will be a truck, but at those kind of prices, it won't be a new one. So as much as I hope that the American car manufacturers survive, I won't be helping them, and I don't honestly see how most people could afford such vehicles.


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Feb 8, 2012)

IMO, ford. Hands down. I have grown up loving the Vette (still do), but Ford is becoming not only more reliable as a brand, but doing a more effective job as a whole picture. There are good cars from pretty much all car companies. 

I think people in general might see the car manufactures one way, but small business owners like Al and I have to deal with the fact that every day we have to earn our business and a bail out isn't even an option. To me, this is why it is honorable that Ford made it work. The car industry is one of the most competitive, if not the most and no business is easy.


----------



## BobF (Feb 8, 2012)

milbrosa said:


> I was at a Dodge / Jeep dealer picking up some parts for my Cherokee yesterday. I happened to take a look at the sticker on a Dodge 2500 with Cummins diesel engine, and I about fainted. Talk about sticker shock. $62K for that truck.
> 
> You can buy a decent house for that in some parts of the country.
> 
> My next vehicle will be a truck, but at those kind of prices, it won't be a new one. So as much as I hope that the American car manufacturers survive, I won't be helping them, and I don't honestly see how most people could afford such vehicles.


 
In 2009 I bought a 2005 2500/Cummins. I paid $17K. Add in the things I've had to repair and my total is still less than $20K and I'm still working it pretty hard.

No way I would have paid the price for a new one at the time. Yes, I could have afforded it, bit it didn't make sense to me to spend that much on a truck.

I purchased this for my small business and I'm after positive cash flow


----------



## BobF (Feb 8, 2012)

Julie said:


> roflmao, ok this is how I look at this, which is better Ford or Chevy? That argument has been going on for years. I have own, Fords, Chevys and Chryslers and loved them all. But each company caters to comsumers that love their product. Not all consumers are going to like everything about one product, that is why all three companies are loved, they cater to different personalities. Just because Ford did not take the bailout does not make them the superior company.
> 
> This post started about a commercial and I loved that commericial. I did not look at it as Clint Eastwood talking about Detroit but about companies that got knock on the backside and pulled themselves up. And by company, I am talking about the workers, plant managers and every employee. They all needed to pull together to make this happen and they did. And that was what this commercial was about, it was about how this country was started.


 
I understand what you're saying, but this country wasn't founded on government provided venture capital.


----------



## UBB (Feb 8, 2012)

This one is a little more accurate.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_8qCbHsUA&feature=share"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_8qCbHsUA&feature=share[/ame]


----------



## AlFulchino (Feb 8, 2012)

thanks for finding and sharing


----------



## timber (Feb 8, 2012)

Interesting thread!
I think it was a pretty good "feel good" ad that wasn't too far off base (as ads go ... it was an ad, after all).

Yes, there was a bailout for the auto industry, that's not at question but a lot of jobs (families) were and are at stake and the auto industry is a model candidate for industry and the rebuilding of industry to keep it alive ... which represents much of what we all are going through in this country, these were loans and I believe Chrystler has paid back more than $7.6 B of that loan (in record time). Now Wall Street and the big banks is an entirely different story, they were bailed out bigtime (have they even made a single payment to repay?) and, of course, they revert right back to the same old fun and games.
IMO, we need more industry, renewable energy is one that clearly comes to mind that could not only put more people back to work but could reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. I would hope as much money that bailed out the auto industry and wall street is put into loans for research and development of new technologies ... I think we need to wean ourselves of our dependency on foreign innovation and do some innovation of our own.
I liked the ad.


----------



## Julie (Feb 8, 2012)

timber said:


> Interesting thread!
> I think it was a pretty good "feel good" ad that wasn't too far off base (as ads go ... it was an ad, after all).
> 
> Yes, there was a bailout for the auto industry, that's not at question but a lot of jobs (families) were and are at stake and the auto industry is a model candidate for industry and the rebuilding of industry to keep it alive ... which represents much of what we all are going through in this country, these were loans and I believe Chrystler has paid back more than $7.6 B of that loan (in record time). Now Wall Street and the big banks is an entirely different story, they were bailed out bigtime (have they even made a single payment to repay?) and, of course, they revert right back to the same old fun and games.
> ...



thank you for this post, I totally agree.


----------



## JordanPond (Feb 8, 2012)

timber said:


> Interesting thread!
> I think it was a pretty good "feel good" ad that wasn't too far off base (as ads go ... it was an ad, after all).
> 
> Yes, there was a bailout for the auto industry, that's not at question but a lot of jobs (families) were and are at stake and the auto industry is a model candidate for industry and the rebuilding of industry to keep it alive ... which represents much of what we all are going through in this country, these were loans and I believe Chrystler has paid back more than $7.6 B of that loan (in record time). Now Wall Street and the big banks is an entirely different story, they were bailed out bigtime (have they even made a single payment to repay?) and, of course, they revert right back to the same old fun and games.
> ...



Well said.


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Feb 9, 2012)

To me, the gov't is NOT who innovates. I mean, there have been innovations by the gov't (thinking NASA/military), but it's more important that the gov't create a stable place for business to flock to. Innovation will be where taxes are low/reasonable, regulations are reasonable and workers are educated/productive. 

I'd rather not get political and that's where this seems to be going.

I do agree we need to find renewable resources, but at the same time, it has to be realistic and affordable. Example, many forget that when you charge an electric car, that power is probably coming from coal or oil and then there is the production of batteries. The main savings in that is not shipping the gas to each station, while power lines become the transit and the ability to refuel without driving to a station at all. 

Answers to this stuff are over my head. lol. I'll stick to wine!!


----------



## timber (Feb 9, 2012)

> I'd rather not get political and that's where this seems to be going.



I agree and was purposely avoiding (or trying to avoid) drawing political distinctions (if, in fact, you were even referring to my post). Just the vision of the word politics, in my mind, paints a picture of divisions, fences and polarization, NOT IMHO, what this country needs to survive and sustain itself.
Working together, reaching across those fences and resisting attempts from others to build walls instead of bridges seems the only way for us to move forward.

Perhaps making wine IS the answer, enjoying, sitting down at the same table, sharing our secrets of success and relaxing ... these all conjure images of hope and cooperation.

Enjoy,


----------

