Obama's Halftime Hypocrisy

On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history.


On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history—brought to you by Chrysler—called "It's Halftime in America."

In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood's gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city—no, a nation—to government dependency, claiming that "the people of Detroit" lost almost everything but because "we" pulled together and the "Motor City is fighting again"—punching, roaring, imbued with American grit—we survived.

Or, some might argue, after screwing stakeholders, discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing those who employ better ones) and sticking taxpayers with the unions' fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration's economic policy.

Either way, it's odd that we didn't hear much griping about "corporatism," oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president's re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler's running a campaign ad, but the thing is that if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning this kind of politicking. You know, for the good of democracy.

You may remember that the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to argue that the federal government should be empowered to ban books if Washington deems that they amount to "political electioneering." Let's just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days.

You may also remember that when Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy of competing without taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford's defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad.

What about commercials? What about commercials produced by companies that benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration?

What about "It's Halftime in America"? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, "Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on." (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by the same people who wrote the script that Eastwood read.) Obama's campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: "Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?"

Hmm. Not sure. David—if I may—maybe you could ask Clint or the agency that created the commercial, Wieden+Kennedy, because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have worked on Obama campaigns and Democratic causes for years.

As for those super PACs—the main boogeyman of Citizens United—The Washington Examiner reminded me, the president once asked voters to "challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it." Join us? Let's start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, his campaign asked top fundraisers to support his own super political action committee.

Admittedly, brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We believe that citizens should be free to support any candidate with as much money as they'd like—anonymously, if they desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored politicking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life—Obama once claimed they were a "threat to democracy"—why would the president partake in this orgy of gruesome selfishness?

It was reported that Obama had one of his internal "evolving conversations" on the issue, conversations that always seem to evolve into Obama's rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations that are educational. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threatening democracy—corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United—what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.


NEXT: Dan Abrams on 'the Media's Shameful, Inexcusable Distortion' of Citizens United

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, no, I’ve been assured by HuffPo that if you didn’t like the Chrysler commercial it’s because you are an America-hating racist 1%er, and there is no other possible reason.

    1. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

        1. There’s a cornhole joke to be made here, but far be it from me…

      1. What if you’re straight with humans but bi with dogs? I’m asking for a friend.

        1. I see what you did there.

      2. looking for the childlover?—datepedo*cO’m— is a site for childsexual and childcurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their pedophilia.sign up for free.

    2. looking for the childlover?—datepedo*cO’m— is a site for childsexual and childcurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their pedophilia.sign up for free.

      1. It doesn’t look like it makes any difference what the first post is, lily and lola will stop by.

  2. Detroit’s a wasteland thanks to poor governence.

    1. “Emergency Manager” — it’s like a bad fucking parody of Mad Max-esque movies.

    2. I worked in Detroit for 4 years. I didn’t think there were any car manufacturing in Detroit and the suburban plants were closing; see Rodger and me.

  3. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threatening democracy?corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United?what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term.

    More like David Harcynic.

  4. OT, but I need some help. The wife and I are adopting a large Neapolitan Mastiff this Saturday. For the life of me, we cannot come up with a name we both agree on.

    I wanted “Superdeath Killbot 5000”, which she vetoed. She wanted some stupid name that I can’t even remember it was so dumb. Any suggestions? (if you’re too lazy to google, it’s the dog from Harry Potter)

    1. Is the dog male or female?

      1. Sorry, I guess that would help. He’s male.

        1. Janet Neapolitan.

          1. As they say in the south, “that’s just wrong.”

            1. Yeah, wrong Janet.

              Janet Reno

              1. oops, now Balko will be after me for being mean to a dog.

          2. Janet Neapolitan?

            Too nice! Who doesn’t like ice cream.

        2. I was trying to think of something Italian, but after looking at a pic at wikipedia, I’ll say “Professor Farnsworth.”

        3. “Shithead” just like in The Jerk.

      2. Alexander the Great

      3. Is your dog bicurious?

    2. Jerry Lee Lewis, so you can use his nick when she is not around.

    3. I would name it “drool faucet”.

      Also, wrap your entire house in plastic if you value anything inside of it. I have friends who have them, their house is like a Jackson Pollack painting from top to bottom.

      1. Yeah everybody is telling me that as long as you wipe their faces after they eat or drink, you can at least minimize the drool on everything. We shall see.

        1. Yeah, good luck with that. They are great dogs don’t get me wrong, and they definitely are one of the best home security devices available, but they are just insane with the drool.

          1. they definitely are one of the best home security devices available


            I like my furniture un-obliterated, so I’m stiking to guns for security. Jim obviously hates his furniture.

            1. Actually, it’s just the droll that’s the problem. They are good about not getting on furniture or chewing stuff to pieces (at least these dogs are) but the drool factory is pretty wretch-worthy.

              1. Rottweilers FTW, ya’ll.

                1. Fuck that. Puggle Daschund mixes for the win.

                  My dozer will punk any dog on the planet. Truth.

                  1. Isn’t a puggle already a mix?

                2. English Springer Spaniels rule.

              2. So the dog’s too much of a comedian for you?

            2. Yeah RPA, that’s actually why we went with that breed. My wife wanted a giant dog, but I wanted one that could pull security, esp. when I’m not home (hence unable to use a gun).

              Regular English mastiffs are the biggest, but not great guard dogs. Bullmastiffs and Neapolitans are much more protective and can kill strangers dead?.

              1. If you’re willing to make it a dedicated guard dog (that is, no access to kids, kept purely for security purposes), point-break an Irish wolfhound or a Rottweiler, and your intruder is fucked. It’s never going to be anything but a guard, but it works.

                1. I wanted a rotty, but they weren’t big enough as my wife wanted something 130 lbs+

                  1. Did you ever consider an Akita?

                    They are by far the best dogs I’ve been around for protection, if properly raised.

                    1. And super faithful, at least according to Richard Gere.

                  2. I’m curious, though, Jim — does your wife have an aversion to guns, or is the dog just an extra precaution?

                    1. @ Tman – too much shedding in Texas. Lived with a huskey for awhile, and our corgi sheds like an MF, so I didn’t want anything with super-hair.

                      @ RPA – just extra precaution. She’s not fond of guns as I am, but she owns one, and knows how to use it. I make sure she goes to the range a couple of times a year to be reminded.

                      Dog the Bounty Hunter said once that any criminal smart enough can evade an electronic security system, and that the best security a man can have in his house is a couple of guard dogs.

                    2. You could always just get an Occutard. Fat welfare fuck, so over 200 pounds easy, and it barks and bites like a mother-fucker. And you don’t need to feed it anything but lard.

                2. Why should rotties be kept from kids? They are, by far, the best dogs I have ever seen around kids.

                  1. Doberman’s are the only dogs bred specifically to be guard dogs. Known as “velcro” dogs, they love their owners and won’t leave their side. Awesome with kids, minimal genetic defects, except a stomach issue which can pop up in a large % of cases. Extremely intelligent and trainable, won’t drool (except after drinking) and don’t shed. Minimal grooming required. 130 lbs is a bad weight for most dobermans though. Only problem (for Texas) is melanoma. Thin fur makes them rough in the sun.

                    1. For the dog, Jim, how about “Morpheus”? Big, black, and related to a Neo…

                      Neos are great, but yeah, watch out for the drool. Not sure how they handle DFW heat either, so you’ll need plenty of water around. Post some pictures when you get a chance.

                      Incidentally, the answer for guard dogs if you don’t have guests over and don’t mind collateral damage is a Fila Brasileiro.

                  2. Mom had 5 rotties over the years , 3 at one time. I agree, all were loyal, protective and certainly not the child eating monsters they’re made out to be. One wasn’t much of a guard dog, he was more of a 3 Dimensional rug – the only way he’d stop a robbery is if the robber tripped over him – they’re great dogs and unfairly maligned.

        2. Cujo


    4. General Zod.

      1. I’m liking this one most so far, though all suggestions are good and appreciated.

        1. Mr. Major-General Twinkle-Dee?

          1. Fluffy, Destroyer of Worlds

            1. Naming a BFDog “Fluffy” is funny. +1.

        2. Just think about it–you’re walking him in a park, a kid comes up wanting to pet him, and you say, “Kneel before Zod.” That would never get boring.

          1. You are so correct, but that doesn’t make it right.

      1. Spooner!

    5. Arcadius.

    6. I have a female Neo Mastiff. I named her Lulu Belle.
      Now that she is four, I think she more closely resembles Eeyore with the general nature of Snuffleupagus.
      Warning: be prepared for massive amounts of drool. Massive. Not kidding. I have shop towels in every room to wipe the drool.

      1. Question: how old was she before she stopped growing?

    7. Don’t name it, or you may regret the stupid name you choose. Pets acquire a name over time.

      1. That means the name will be Shithead every time.

        1. or “Damn Dog”

      2. Don’t do this…my eldest male became “Asshat MacTavish” using this method. I’m grateful he will at least answer to MacTavish or Mac.

    8. Hiro. That’s what I wanted to name our Great Pyr, but my wife googled it and immediately vetoed.

      1. Like, Hiroshima?

        1. That pantsy from ‘Heroes’, I bet!

          1. No, the protagonist.

        2. No, Hiro was a manga character, a Great Pyr who subdued his enemies by biting off their balls.

          1. No, the protagonist.

            Great, now I’ve this image of a Pyr slashing a wolf’s balls off with a katana. Or with one of its five extra dewclaws. Seriously, what is it with that breed and all the extra digits?

            1. Apparently Pays Basque is Europe’s West Virginia.

    9. Mouse

      1. Sorry, no real dog is quite as awesome as Mouse.

    10. It’s a bit long of a name, but how about “Not Just An Ice Cream Old Ladies at the Grocer’s Can’t Pronounce”?

      or “Napoleon” as they would always say, for short.

    11. If he only had a few more wrinkly chins you could call him Kagan.

    12. Chester.

    13. My go to for giant black dogs: D’Brickashaw

      1. Awesome.

      1. Or Percival but you can call him Percy for short

    14. Give it two names; one for each of you.

      1. though all of our pets (5 cats and 2 dogs) have 1 “official” name, they each are called something completely different by my wife and I. In fact, each of our animals has at least 10 names, and, though I’m not sure how, they each answer to all of them correctly.

        1. I’ve gotten our 2 dogs and 2 cats to respond to their names, and the dogs to “The dogs,” and the cats to “the bears.” And, of course, myriad variations of their names, which accounts for like 5 of the 8 words that my pointer/pit bull mix knows.

    15. Also thought about doing “Paul”, as a Family Guy Adam West reference. Except that was a cat. That was fired from a crossbow.

      1. Name it Clegane, in honor of Martin’s procrastination.

        1. That’s actually a great idea, except I would tend towards Sandor. Still, all in all a great suggestion, esp. since she was initially wanting to name the thing Belarion.

          1. ‘Belarion’ phonetically brings ‘Bel-Air’ into my mind, so I probably couldn’t take it seriously.

    16. Jaws – like the guy with steel teeth in the Bond movies.


      Mr. Bojangles
      Rocky Balboa
      Lord Pistachio

    18. Caesar. Hercules. Or pick someone from here:

      1. That Omari dude featured is definitely a badass

    19. It’s a bit long but stay with me here…

      My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

      The whole thing.

      1. But you can call him “My” for short.

    20. Alexander.

      And I really want a brindle Fila Brasileiro but I just know he’d end up killing some methed-out burglar and I’d spend all my money on lawyers.

      1. Yeah those are beautiful dogs, no doubt.

    21. Jeebus

    22. Dirk McBrickpecs

  5. I thought Eastwood was supposed to be a libertarian?

    1. Obviously, he did the ad for the movie (like a true libertarian oughta). But, nevertheless, I’ll always consider this a blight on an otherwise exception career for a Hollywood A-lister.

      1. Oops, I meant “Obviously, he did the ad for the money.” But feel free to consider the comic possibilities of a feature film adaptation of the ad.

        1. Gran Torino, kind of?

          1. I liked that movie. *Stare*.

            1. nanoagressive male gazer.

              1. And you know what else, Sudden? I stared at a really attractive chick’s ass today at Starbucks. It was, like, heavenly-grade awesome. I stared, I analyzed, and I was proud of it. Should I check in to a clinic for un-sexism-ization?

                1. Pics or it didn’t happen.

                  1. Sort of like this:


                    But it had better scenery, like this:


                    1. You sir are a true American hero.

                      +10 internetz for you.

                    2. The interior of your local Starbucks is that nice?

                2. You need to be quarantined because of your contagious sex addiction.

                  1. What the hell’s wrong with sex addictions?

                    1. Sex addiction is something that takes us over. It’s not part of a male’s default biology.

                      Stop asking questions. You’re going to blow it for the rest of us.

    2. He never was.

    3. Never heard this before – [citation needed].


      A man’s got to know his limitations.

      Do ya feel lucky, punk?

      Me…and Smith & Wesson…

      BANG! You’re dead.

      ‘Deserve’s’ got NOTHING to do with it…

      Drop your cocks and grab your socks



      make me want to grant him Honorary H&Ritarian; status, at least. Body of work and all that…

      1. man’s gotta do something to make a livin’

    4. It’s the end of the third quarter, time to switch quarter backs?

      1. The only problem with that analysis is that GOP voters in Missouri, Montana, and Colorado seem hellbent on giving us Tim Tebow as a QB.

        So our choices will be Jamarcus Russel (Obama), Tim Tebow (Santorum), or Todd Marinovich (Gary Johnson)

        1. How ’bout a strike instead of a season?

        2. Or Dan Marino (Mitt Romney)

          1. Or Jay Cutler (Newt)

            1. I thought Jeff George was Newt!

              1. Same difference, twerp.

    5. He’s been described as libertarian leaning. Dirty Harry may have even said that himself. This commercial was another fine example of our tax dollars at work but I don’t think Eastwood gave it much thought. I’m fairly certain Chrysler said “Hey, Clint! Here’s a fat stack of cash to make a commercial.” Hard to say no to that.

      1. He saw it as being patriotic. ‘Cause nothing’s more patriotic than ‘MERICAN jobs.

      2. eastwood donated the money to charity

  6. Clint Eastwood is a libertarian, alright.

    1. You libertarians will never make anything out of yourselves if you continue with the labels and the dogma side of things. Myself, I’m a Marxist. We learned long ago to stop with the purity bullshit and embrace capitalism and the Democrat party. Now we’ve got China, America, India, Western Europe all tebowing to Karl Marx

      1. I likes the Marxist on the ends of my knives. It is is a pity I’ve only been allowed to do that in war.

  7. I see words, but all I read is waaah waaah waaah.

    If your political philosophy causes you to root for bad social outcomes just so you’re proved right, then it’s a stupid political philosophy.

    1. Waaah waaah waaah.

    2. Christ Almighty, what I’d pay to see you try to pull this sort of snarky shit in a Russian pool bar.

      1. I would never do that! I love Communism!

    3. Your philosophy ignores obvious consequences of engineered social outcomes, because you are stoopid.

      1. No it doesn’t. The problem is you don’t realize you are much more of a social engineer with even less care for the outcomes. The only thing I care about are outcomes. You guys think the solution to the financial crisis was letting things go to shit so as to appease the market gods, and oh yeah let’s fuck over poor people some more just to be dicks. You can tack on bullshit about freedom all you want, you’d still radically alter society from what it is, and good luck doing it with the people’s consent.

        1. For it is the solecism of power, to think to command the end, and yet not to endure the mean.

        2. Your guys and their methods haven’t fixed anything! They’ve only deferred it…..and the pressure still builds!

          God you are a fucking idiot and I say this using the modern American University English Major index when I make the statement so I don’t make it lightly.

        3. The only thing I care about [is] outcomes.

          You sure about that, Tony?

        4. “oh yeah let’s fuck over poor people some more just to be dicks.”

          Like GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcies?

        5. Our solution to the financial crisis was to fuck over rich people. Yours was to bail them out. Actually, our solution was to warn about it for the better part of a decade and oppose the organization (the Fed) that caused it. Your solution was to cause it and then double down on it.

          1. Not rich people. Pensioners, college funds, and union funds, too, were fucked over.

            Its funny how close “pensioner” is to “prisoner”.

        6. The only thing I care about are outcomes.

          Yeah, we know. You’re a good utilitarian who will send an innocent man to the gas chamber if enough people demand it.

          1. Knowing outcomes to policies/legislation passed, but no yet in effect is impossible.

            You might as well ‘only care about unicorns’.

        7. The only thing I care about are outcomes.

          Which is your biggest problem. You’re good with whatever means are used so long as your precious outcomes are met.

        8. The only thing I care about are make believe outcomes, not the actual outcomes.

    4. GM and Chrysler going bankrupt (which they did anyway after shaking down taxpayers) is not a bad social outcome. Why didn’t we bail out Circuit City or K-Mart?

      1. First of all, bankruptcy is a government bailout. You can’t run to bankruptcy on free-market principle.

        Second, the reason the auto industry was important was because of the various domestic industries that rely on it, and the American workers who work there.

        1. “I, fucking pencil”, dude. Technically speaking, every industry relies on every other fucking industry.

          Which brings us back to why other, less politically-connected industries don’t receive multi-billion dollar bailouts.

          1. Obama wants the money up front.

        2. It would seem that the American people disagree with you Tony, given their growing distaste for GM and Chrysler vehicles. Do we just keep subsidizing them ad infinitum, piling up millions of unsold cars in abandoned lots?

          1. Hey back off Tony….he drives a Trabant!

            How’s that “coffee can full of bees” working for you Okie?!

          2. We should melt them down to make newer ones.

        3. Last I checked, Americans worked at Circuit City and K-Mart. And, as “Furious” Styles mentioned, all businesses rely on other businesses.

          1. Fine. We should have bailed them out, then. Not like Republicans would have done it, though. Nothing they fear more than a successful black president.

            1. Pretty sure this is a spoof. But either way, then, are you equally upset the horse ‘n buggy and typewriter businesses went belly up last century?

            2. And here we have it: The typical useful idiot corporatist who simultaneously whines about corporate influence and advocates giving out money to corporations by the truckload.

              1. And here we have it: The typical useful idiot corporatist who simultaneously whines about corporate influence and advocates giving out money to corporations by the truckload.

                That’s liberalism in 1 line.

          2. “Last I checked, Americans worked at Circuit City and K-Mart”

            You haven’t checked for a while. Circuit City went out of business in 2009.

            1. He used past tense.

            2. Oddly enough, they still have a web site.

        4. “You can’t run to bankruptcy on free-market principle.”

          A lack of something like bankruptcy laws would be a bailout for parties who make stupid loans. Bankruptcy punishes all parties.

          1. Tony’s a disingenous tool, but he’s right about this. Bad faith borrowers are little different from fraudsters and should spend nights in debtor’s prisons until they pay off their debts. That’s of course different from good faith borrowers from stupid lenders, or borrowers whose luck takes a turn for the worse.

            Stupid lending and extreme debt is largely a result of this market distortion created by the government setting an artificial protection on personal and business assets. Creditors shouldn’t be screwed because the government puts this artificial structure above their contractual rights. They should have bankruptcy and contract renegotiation terms in the contract and end the legal shield.

            1. “Stupid lending and extreme debt is largely a result of this market distortion created by the government setting an artificial protection on personal and business assets.”

              This is pretty much the answer to the question: “How much can you fuck up a market and still hope it works?”
              Well, Frannie, Freddy, and the Fed’s interest manipulation give us some idea: About enough to cause the worst economic mess since FDR screwed the pooch.

        5. “You can’t run to bankruptcy on free-market principle.”

          That doesn’t follow. It just depends on whether your creditors believe you’re worth more to them liquidated or not.

        6. First of all, bankruptcy is a government bailout. You can’t run to bankruptcy on free-market principle.

          Who’s running to it? I stated what happened. I’d be perfectly fine if those companies just died.

        7. Tony, bone up on Chapter 7 of the United States Code before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have.

        8. Tony|2.8.12 @ 7:30PM|#
          “First of all, bankruptcy is a government bailout.”

          OK, shithead, given that you’re an ignoramus, let’s hear what a ‘non-bailout’ alternative to bankruptcy is.

          1. Allowing creditors to claim the personal assets of the business owners? Insurance? There are options that don’t involve this market distortion.

            1. “Allowing creditors to claim the personal assets”

              Where you’re going with this, Proprietist, is exactly the catchphrase of Occupy Bumparks and Tony. Don’t go there, Proprietist.

              In lieu of bankruptcy, then arbitrators would be stuck making arbitrary decisions like determining a reasonable amount of interest for a lendor to be able to collect, which will end up being set by law, and then someone will bitch about that being a market distortion.

              The solution is contracts, and a consistent method for courts (or some other arbitrator) to deal with contracts that don’t cover every situation, which is kind of what bankruptcy is.

              Sometimes you just aint gonna get it back. Which means you fucked up. Aaron Neville wrote a song about it.

      2. who needs the Kwiki-Mart?

    5. “bad social outcomes.”

      Seriously, Tony. Seriously.

      1. I know, how dare I care about such a thing. There are free market gods to strip naked and dance to!

        1. We know you care. After all, how many bad social outcomes ever came from an effort to do “the greater good?” Oh…….. right. All of them. But dont’t worry. This time, I’m sure you’ll get it right!

        2. *Face palm*

    6. This guy belongs in the Troll Hall of Fame

    7. But, Tony, you love Communism, and Communists have been rooting for the downfall of the (relatively) capitalistic West for decades. By your statement, then this makes Communism a stupid political philosophy.

  8. I thought Bush did the auto bailouts.

    1. Much like the bank bailouts, the Bush Administration authorized the bailouts, but much of the actual details were overseen by Obama.

      One wonders if this was maybe a stroke of political genius masterminded by Rove in order to ensure that Obama would rightly be seen as a Norteamericano version of Hugo Chavez and subsequently booted from office after a single term.

      But not even Rove could have predicted the GOP would be stupid enough to nominate Shitcum/Mittens/Newcular Tittes.

      1. This sounds vaguely like something that has happened before. Like there was someone who did something but everyone forgot that he did it and criticized him for failing to do anything and making everything worse, and then the next person did the same things and was given credit for doing things.

        1. Even those things continued to make things worse.

        2. I’m just a patsy!

      2. Most people aren’t going to see the success of the auto industry and call it a failure because it’s in violation of some dogma. The clever ones might even see it as a repudiation of said dogma.

        1. What? Seriously, I can’t make sense of what you wrote.

          1. Then you understand completely.

          2. He’s saying the automotive industry is successful because BAILOUT ROFLOLOLOL, and that we think it’s bad to bail out connected shitheads just because of our retarded dogma, and that the clever ones like him support bailouts

            1. Ah, ok, I guess that must be it. So I guess the financial industry has been a great success for the past decade. Three cheers for those successful bankers! Maybe they should get a bonus or something.

              1. Don’t waste your breath, pal. He’s got Obama’s cock shoved too firmly up his throat to reply.

              2. God bless Wall Street, doing some of the most important work on some of the toughest union pension plans and big time democratic donor insurance companies in America.

          3. Juice. It’s Chinatown.

        2. Tony, you are a fucking asshole. (Sorry, but I got to call ’em like I see ’em). OF COURSE, when you steal money (or stock) from one group of people, and give it to another, the group that it was given to is going to be successful, at least in the short term.

          Dogma, yeah. You won’t mind if I come over to your house and steal all of your possessions and give them to the homeless, will you?

          1. We’ve spent many trillions more on pointless tax cuts for the superrich, which have not been paid back unlike much of the auto industry bailout. You are perfectly fine coming to my house, stealing stuff, and giving it to billionaires. That it’s done via lobbyist-written tax code apparently confuses you into thinking it’s something virtuous.

            1. Spent trillions on tax cuts? And not paid them back? So the government owns everything (all your base are belong to us) and all my money that I thought I owned is really just rented by them. Swell.

            2. Fucking trillions are logical to you. (I know that your logic capabilities are actually nonexistent so you go by cuddly emotion).

              For practical purposes, rational integers can actually become so large that it makes them irrational. One trillion U.S. currency is just as irrational in bill form in any denomination, as it is going through treasury computers in one fiscal year.

            3. How exaclty does one “spend” on a “cut?”

    2. I thought Bush did the auto bailouts.

      The Bush administration approved the first round of loans. The Obama administration oversaw the entire restructuring process.

  9. If this is halftime, what was the first Chrysler bailout in 1979?

    a)Pregame show
    b) First quarter
    C) two minute warning
    d) It’s not halftime at all, Chrysler is an undead zombie much like Eastwood himself.

    1. A Fistfull of Brains, starring Clint “Undead” Eastwood

  10. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad.


    1. *Huge Ford press conference, CEO steps up, fiddles with tie*

      “Eat shit and fuck off, Washington.”

      *Walks away*.

      That would have been a great day.

      1. I think sales would have gone through the roof. Seriously. But not literally.

  11. O/T: it has been confirmed by David Shore and Hugh Laurie that this season will be the final one for House.

    All in all this was one of the better shows of the past decade and I’m glad they’re pulling the plug now that the show has regained some of its early season charm and where they can do a proper finale.…..eries-end/

    1. Turns out Mike Tomlin just said he couldn’t continue to do the show. He cited his inability to beat Tim Tebow as evidence of how the show was adversely effecting his other projects.

      1. Maybe my sarcasm meter is off, but are you referring to Omar Epps?

        1. Doi!

    2. My wife and I have been watching this show back to back in the last month or so. I’m sad to see it go, but eight seasons is plenty for a great series.

      1. Eight is a lot of seasons. Usually, most serial dramas struggle to stay engaging after that long a run. I never managed to get into House, so I can’t comment from a position of authority, but my understanding is that it managed to stay a quality show during its entire run.

        Having said that, the greater sadface is that this year will be the last season of Breaking Bad.

        1. I never managed to get into House, so I can’t comment from a position of authority, but my understanding is that it managed to stay a quality show during its entire run.

          Eh, not really. Seasons 6 was not that great and Season 7 was awful, too much focus on ancillary relationship plotlines. Season 8 has been a bit better in that regard but I imagine Shore and Laurie are tired.

        2. Do you remember the vast, perilous rivers of tears that appeared when ‘Friends’ ran its last? Sweet, delicious tears, eh?

          1. I had hoped that when House went to mental hospital that would have ended the series. House is crazy and all the shows were hallucinations.

            1. No, that was “Dallas”.

  12. Not even 10 fucking cents on the dollar. Nothing. That’s what GM shareholders got; lots of fucking nothin’. It was flat out theft. Stock was literally stolen from the shareholders and given to the unions.

    1. Tony: So what’s your point?

  13. Op Super Bowl Sondag, Amerika bederf met die duurste politieke kommersi?le in die geskiedenis aan u gebring deur Chrysler-genoem “Dis halftyd in Amerika.”

    In ‘n reeks van saai nie sequiturs Clint Eastwood se gruiserige stem vasgepen die belofte van 1 stad-nee, 1 nasie-aan die regering afhanklikheid, beweer dat “die mense van Detroit” verloor byna alles, maar omdat “ons” trek saam en die “Motor City weer veg “-pons, gebrul, gevul met die Amerikaanse K-ons oorleef.

    Of, ‘n paar kan argumenteer, na skroefwerk belanghebbendes, wegdoen wettige kontrakte, lonende mislukte besigheid modelle (terwyl straf diegene wat beteres diens) en vas belastingbetalers met die vakbonde se vet pensioen blad, Amerika het 1 opgehoopte lepel van die Obama-administrasie se ekonomiese beleid.

    In ieder geval, dit is vreemd dat ons nie gehoor het nie veel gierig oor “korporatisme,” oligarchie en Burgers United, maar ‘n korporatiewe-geborgde veldtog plek uitgel? die president se herverkiesing verhaal eerder mooi. Nou, ek het geen vleis met Chrysler se bestuur van ‘n veldtog advertensie, maar die ding is dat as Obama het sy weg, Republikeine sou ‘n goeie saak vir die verbod op hierdie soort van politiekery. Jy weet, vir die goeie van die demokrasie.

    Jy kan onthou dat die Hooggeregshof se burgers Verenigde kyk Federale Verkiesingskommissie besluit gesentreer rondom die vermo? van ‘n korporasie om ‘n dokument?re program van kritieke belang van dan-kandidaat Hillary Clinton te lug. In haar eerste saak as prokureur-generaal vir die Obama-administrasie, in werklikheid, huidige Hooggeregshof Justisie Elena Kagan het so ver gegaan as om te argumenteer dat die federale regering moet bemagtig word om boeke te verbied indien Washington ag dat hulle bedrag aan “politieke verkiezing.” Laat ons net s? dat die gees van Voltaire nie presies stygende in Washington hierdie dae.

    Jy kan ook onthou dat wanneer Ford het ‘n TV-advertensie wat die prys van sy innoverende strategie van mededingende sonder die belastingbetaler liefde (‘n bietjie van ‘n mite self), die Wit Huis is berig toornig, kyk Ford se verdediging van vrye onderneming as ‘n aanval op die president. Nodeloos om te s?, ontstellend hierdie administrasie is sleg vir besigheid, en Ford trek die advertensie.

    Wat van commercials? Wat oor die commercials vervaardig deur maatskappye wat voordeel getrek het (in hierdie geval, ‘n Bush bailout ondersteun deur Obama) van die beleid ondersteun deur hierdie administrasie?

    Wat van “Dit is rustyd in Amerika”? Wel, cheers almal rondom! White House kommunikasie-direkteur Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Berg van die (Amerikaanse) motor-industrie: Iets Eminem en Clint Eastwood kan saamstem oor.” (Eminem lees blykbaar ‘n script wat geskryf is deur dieselfde mense wat die draaiboek wat Eastwood gelees het, geskryf het.) Obama se veldtog argitek, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Kragtige plek Het Clint skiet, of sommer net dit vertel.”

    Hmm. Nie seker nie. David-as ek miskien kan jy kan vra Clint of die agentskap wat die kommersi?le, Wieden + Kennedy, omdat dit na bewering beman deur mense wat op Obama veldtogte en demokratiese oorsake vir die jaar gewerk het.

    Soos vir diegene super PACS die belangrikste Boogeyman van die burger United-Die Washington eksaminator herinner my, die president eenkeer gevra kiesers te daag elke verkose amptenaar wat voordeel trek uit hierdie advertensies om hierdie praktyk te verdedig of ons aansluit (in) dit stop te sit. ” Sluit by ons aan? Kom ons begin met die Obama, wat gaan h? om homself uit te daag, soos hierdie week, sy veldtog gevra top fondsinsamelings sy eie super politieke aksie komitee te ondersteun.

    Weliswaar, wreedaards soos my lewe onder ‘n preposterously verouderde idee. Ons glo dat die burgers moet vry wees om ‘n kandidaat te ondersteun met so veel geld as wat hulle wil-anoniem, as hulle wil. Maar as ‘n super PACS en korporatiewe-geborgde politiekery is regtig die stof van die Amerikaanse lewe-Obama gevaar te bring nie eens beweer dat hulle was ‘n “gevaar vir demokrasie” – hoekom sou die president deelneem aan hierdie orgie van grusame selfsug?

    Daar is berig dat Obama het een van sy interne “ontwikkelende gesprekke” oor die kwessie, gesprekke wat altyd lyk om te ontwikkel in Obama se rasionalisering van alles wat die beste vir Obama. Gesprekke wat onderwys is. Want die volgende keer die bestuur beweer dat meer toespraak demokrasie-korporatiewe toespraak is ‘n bedreiging, super PACS Burgers, United-wat dit regtig beteken, is dat meer toespraak is ‘n bedreiging van sy tweede termyn.

    1. Anyone speak Klingon?

      1. tlhIngan Hol jIjatlh.

    2. “There are only two things i can’t stand in this world,people who are intolerant of other peoples cultures…And the Dutch!”

      1. Afrikaans actually.

        1. South Afrikaans, if they are dutch.

    3. “oligarchie en Burgers United, maar ‘n korporatiewe-geborgde”

      Ah, yes. Now I see; it’s the infamous “Burgers United conspiracy”.
      But you left out Elvis’ alien love-child! How can you tell the story without that?

  14. Me Super Bowl diel?n, Amerika u trajtua me tregtare m? t? shtrenjt? n? historin? politike-solli juve nga Chrysler-quajtur “?sht? i pjes?s s? par? n? Amerik?.”

    N? nj? seri sequiturs shp?lar? jo, z?ri zhavorr Clint Eastwood-s mb?shtet?n premtimin e nj? qyteti-pa, nje-komb n? var?sin? t? qeveris?, duke pretenduar se “populli i Detroit” ka humbur pothuajse ?do gj?, por sepse “ne” u t?rhoq s? bashku dhe t? “Motor Qyteti ?sht? duke luftuar p?rs?ri “-punching, zhurmsh?m, i mbrujtur me zhavor amerikan-ne mbijetuar.

    Ose, disa mund t? thon?, pasi aktor?t vidhosje, kontratat discarding ligjore, modele dobishme t? d?shtuara t? biznesit (duke nd?shkuar ata q? pun?sojn? ato m? t? mira) dhe tatimpaguesit t? f?rkimit me butonin yndyr? t? sindikatave t? pensionit, Amerika mori nj? lug? heaping t? politik?s ekonomike t? administrat?s s? Obam?s.

    Sido q? t? jet?, ?sht? e ?uditshme q? ne nuk d?gjojm? shum? koprrac n? lidhje me “corporatism,” oligarchies dhe qytetar?ve t? Bashkuara, edhe pse nj? korporatave sponsorizuar spot fushata t? p?rcaktuara nga rizgjedhur tregim e presidentit mjaft bukur. Tani, un? nuk kam asnj? vi?i me t? Chrysler drejtimin e nj? ad fushat?, por gj? ?sht? se n? qoft? se Obama kishte rrug?n e tij, republikan?t do t? ket? nj? rast t? mir? p?r ndalimin e k?tij lloj politicking. Ju e dini, p?r t? mir?n e demokracis?.

    Ju mund t? mbani mend se qytetar?t i Gjykat?s s? Lart? Komisioni United v Federal Zgjedhor vendim p?rq?ndruar rreth aft?sis? s? nj? korporate n? aj?r nj? dokumentar kritike e pastaj-kandidat Hillari Klinton. N? rastin e saj t? par? si avokat p?rgjith?si p?r administrat?n e Obam?s, n? fakt, aktual i Gjykat?s s? Lart? i Drejt?sis? Elena Kagan shkoi aq larg sa t? thon? se qeveria federale duhet t? fuqizohen p?r t? ndaluar librat n? qoft? se Uashingtoni konsideron se ata t? arrijn? n? “elektorale politike.” Le t? them vet?m shpirti i Volteri nuk ?sht? pik?risht fluturues n? Uashington k?to dit?.

    Ju gjithashtu mund t? mbani mend se kur Ford u zhvillua nj? reklam? TV duke p?rg?zuar strategjin? e saj t? reja t? konkurrojn? pa bamir?si tatimpaguesit (pak e nj? miti vet?), se Sht?pia e Bardh? u incensed thuhet se, duke e par? mbrojtjen Ford-s? sip?rmarrjes s? lir? si nj? sulm ndaj presidentit. S’?sht? nevoja t? thuhet, trondit?se kjo administrat? ?sht? e keqe p?r biznesin, dhe Ford u t?rhoq ad.

    Po n? lidhje me reklama? Po n? lidhje me reklamat e prodhuara nga kompanit? q? kan? p?rfituar (n? k?t? rast, nj? bailout Bush mb?shtetur nga Obama) nga politikat e mb?shtetura nga ky administrim?

    What about “?sht? i pjes?s s? par? n? Amerik??” E pra, cheers gjith? rreth! Sht?pis? s? Bardh?, drejtor komunikimi Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Ruajtja e Industris? (amerikan) Auto: Eminem Di?ka Clint Eastwood dhe mund t? bien dakord p?r”. (. Eminem me sa duket t? lexuar nj? skenar q? ishte shkruar nga t? nj?jtit njer?z q? e shkroi skenarin se Eastwood lexuar) arkitekt Obam?s fushat?s, David Axelrod, tweeted: “vend i Fuqish?m A Clint gjuaj se, ose thjesht transmetonte at?.?”

    Hmm. Nuk jam i sigurt. David-n? qoft? se un? mund-ndoshta ju mund t? pyesni Clint apo agjenci q? krijoi komerciale, Wieden + Kennedy, sepse ajo ?sht? staf thuhet nga folks q? kan? punuar n? fushatat e Obam?s dhe shkaqet Demokratike p?r vite me rradh?.

    Sa p?r ato super PACS-lugat sh.p. kryesor i qytetar?ve t? Bashkuara-Uashington Examiner kujtoi mua, presidenti dikur k?rkoi votuesve t? “sfiduar cdo zyrtar t? zgjedhur q? p?rfiton nga k?to reklama p?r t? mbrojtur k?t? praktik? apo bashkohen me ne (n?), ta ndalojm? at?.” Bashkohu me ne? Le t? fillojm? me Obam?n, i cili do t? ket? p?r t? sfiduar veten, q? k?t? jav?, fushata e tij k?rkoi fundraisers t? lart? p?r t? mb?shtetur komisionin e vet e tij super politik t? veprimit.

    Duhet pranuar, monstra si un? jetojn? n?n nj? nocion preposterously vjet?r. Ne besojm? se qytetar?t duhet t? jen? t? lir? p?r t? mb?shtetur ndonj? kandidat me parat? sa m? shum? q? ata do t? doja-anonime, n?se ata d?shirojn?. Por n? qoft? se PACS super dhe korporatave sponsorizuar politicking jan? me t? v?rtet? rrezikojn? struktur?n e v?rtet? t? jet?s amerikane Obama sapo pohoi se ata ishin nj? “k?rc?nim p?r demokracin?”, pse do t? presidenti t? marrim pjes? n? k?t? orgji t? egoizmit tmerrshme?

    ?sht? raportuar se Obama kishte nj? t? brendshme t? tij “biseda n? zhvillim” p?r k?t? ??shtje, bisedat q? gjithmon? duket t? zhvillohen n? t? Obam?s racionalizimi ?do gj? q? ?sht? e mir? p?r Obam?n. Bisedat q? jan? arsimore. Sepse her?n tjet?r administrata pohon se fjalimi m? shum? po k?rc?non demokracin?-t? korporatave fjalim, super PACS, Qytetar?t United-?far? ?sht? me t? v?rtet? do t? thot? ?sht? se fjalimi m? shum? po k?rc?non mandatin e saj t? dyt

  15. Super Bowl Sunday On, Amerika politiko garestiena merkataritza historia-ekarri Chrysler-izeneko izan zen tratatu “America in emaitzarekin heldu da.”

    Ez vapid sequiturs multzo bat, Clint Eastwood-en gravelly ahots orratzez bat hiria-ez dago, bat nazio-to gobernuak mendekotasun promesa da duenez, “Detroiteko” galdutako ia guztia aldarrikatzeko, baina delako bota “dugu” elkarrekin eta “Motor du City da berriro borrokan “puntzonatzeko, roaring, with imbued American horra-bizirik.

    Edo, batzuetan, argudiatu dezake stakeholders screwing, baztertu legezko kontratuak, aberasgarria huts egin du negozio-eredu (nork enplegatzen hobea direnak zigortzen eta urrutikoan) eta itsastea sindikatuek da ‘pentsioa gantz fitxa zergadunei, ondoren, America lortu da Obama administrazioa-politika ekonomiko koilarakada heaping bat.

    Edo, bakoitiak da ez dugula entzuten ez askoz buruz griping “Corporativismo,,” oligarchies eta Hiritarrak United, nahiz eta babestutako kanpaina bat korporazio-Leku banatuta presidente ber-electoral narratiba nicely baizik. Orain, txahalaren ez daukat Chrysler-ad kanpaina bat martxan, baina gauza da, Obama izan zuen bere bidea bada, republicanos politicking-mota hori debekatzeak kasu ona izango litzateke. Badakizu, demokraziaren onerako.

    Auzitegi Gorenak Hiritarrak United v Federaleko Hauteskunde Batzordearen erabakia inguruko dokumental bat gero-hautagai Hillary Clinton kritikoa aire korporazio gaitasuna gogoratu ahal izango duzu. Obama administrazioa solicitor orokorra bezala bere lehenengo kasuan, hain zuzen ere, gaur egungo Auzitegi Gorenak Justizia Elena Kagan joan hain urruti, eta gobernu federalak duen ahalmena behar liburuak debekatu Washington bada jotzen gisa argudiatu zenbatekoa dute “electioneering politikoa”. Dezagun, besterik gabe esan Voltaire espiritua da ez zehazki soaring Washington-en egun hauetan.

    Era berean, Ford ran bere zergadunak karitatearen (mito bat, berez, pixka bat) gabe lehiatzeko estrategia berritzailea goraipatu TV ad, White House zen informatzen incensed. Gogoratu ahal izango duzu, Ford enpresa free defentsa presidentearen aurkako eraso bat bezala begiratzen. Esan, hau upsetting administrazio txarra enpresa, eta Ford ad bota.

    Zer iragarki buruz? Zein da onuradun diren enpresek (kasu honetan, Obama onartzen Bush bailout a) administrazio honen bidez onartzen diren politikak sortutako iragarki buruz?

    Zer “Amerikan emaitzarekin heldu da”? Beno, inguruan cheers guztiak! White House komunikazio zuzendari Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “(American) Auto Industria Aurrezteko:, Something Eminem eta Clint Eastwood onartzen.” (Eminem itxuraz irakurri idatzi script Eastwood irakurri duten pertsona bera zela-ek idatzitako script bat) Obamaren kanpaina arkitektoa, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Leku Powerful Ba Clint tiro, edo, besterik gabe kontatzen du.?”

    Hmm. Ez da ziur. David-bada-agian I Clint edo agentzia sortu duen merkataritza, Wieden + Kennedy, galdetu izan da informatzen Folks duten Obama kanpainak eta kausak Democr?tico urtez lan egin staffed baita.

    Dagokionez, super PACs-Herritarraren boogeyman nagusia United-The Washington Examiner gogorarazi zidan, presidenteak behin galdetu hautesleek “erronka bakoitzean aukeratua ofiziala duten iragarki horiek onuragarria da praktika hau defendatzeko, edo gurekin () gelditzen.” Konta iezaguzu? Dezagun Obama, nork bere burua zalantzan jartzea izan behar da, aste honetan, bere kanpaina eskatu top fundraisers bere ekintza politiko super batzorde laguntzeko.

    Admittedly, ni bezalako brutes nozioa preposterously antiquated baten menpe bizi. Herritar free hautagaia edozein onartzen dute litzaidake-nahi anonimoki, nahi izanez gero ahalik eta dirua izan behar dela uste dugu. Baina, super PACs eta korporazio-sponsored politicking benetan bada, amerikar bizitza-Obama ehuna oso arriskuan jarri “demokraziaren mehatxu” zergatik presidente selfishness gruesome orgia horretan partake bat behin hartu behar ziren?

    Berri eman da Obama bere barne “eboluzionatzen elkarrizketetan” arazoa, elkarrizketak beti diruditen, Obama onena da, edozein dela ere Obama for arrazionalizatzeakorapilatu sartu eboluzionatu zuela. Dira hezkuntza elkarrizketak dela. Hurrengo administrazio aldarrikatu gehiago hizketa hori demokrazia-korporazio hitzaldian mehatxatu, PACs super delako, Hiritarrak United-zer izango da benetan esan nahi dela gehiago hitzaldian bere bigarren epe mehatxatu da.

  16. El diumenge del Super Bowl, els Estats Units va ser tractada en el comercial pol?tic m?s car de la hist?ria, portat a vost? per Chrysler-anomenat “?s de mig temps als Estats Units.”

    En una s?rie de insulses incongru?ncies, la veu de Clint Eastwood, grava va cobrir la promesa d’una ciutat-no, una naci? a la depend?ncia del govern, afirmant que “la gent de Detroit” va perdre gaireb? tot, sin? perqu? “nosaltres” reunit i el motor ” Ciutat est? lluitant de nou “, punxonat, rugent, imbu?t de gra nord-americana-que van sobreviure.

    O b?, alguns podrien argumentar, despr?s dels interessats de rosca, els contractes de descartar legals i gratificants fallits models de negoci (mentre es castiga els que empren altres millors) i els contribuents s’enganxen amb la fitxa dels sindicats de pensions de greix, Estats Units va tenir una cullerada plena de la pol?tica econ?mica del govern d’Obama.

    De qualsevol manera, ?s rar que no es va saber molt queixar-se de “corporativisme”, oligarquies i dels Ciutadans Units, encara que un espot de la campanya patrocinada per les empreses va exposar el president de la reelecci? de la narrativa for?a b?. Ara, no tinc carn de vaca amb Chrysler executant una campanya publicit?ria, per? la cosa ?s que si Obama va sortir amb la seva, els republicans tindrien un bon cas per prohibir aquest tipus de politiqueria. Ja saps, pel b? de la democr?cia.

    Vost? pot recordar que els ciutadans de la Cort Suprema Units vs Federal Electoral Decisi? de la Comissi? al voltant de la capacitat d’una corporaci? a emetre un documental cr?tic de la llavors candidata Hillary Clinton. En el seu primer cas com a procurador general de l’administraci? d’Obama, de fet, l’actual Tribunal Suprem de Just?cia, Elena Kagan va ser tan lluny com per argumentar que el govern federal ha d’estar facultada per prohibir els llibres si Washington considera que la quantitat de “electoralisme pol?tic”. Diguem que l’esperit de Voltaire no ?s exactament al?a a Washington en aquests dies.

    Vost? pot tamb? recordar que quan Ford va publicar un anunci de televisi? lloant a la seva estrat?gia innovadora de competir sense la caritat dels contribuents (una mica de mite en si), la Casa Blanca estava indignat pel que sembla, veient la defensa de Ford de la lliure empresa com un atac contra el president. No cal dir que, alterant d’aquesta administraci? ?s dolent per als negocis, i Ford va retirar l’anunci.

    Qu? passa amb els anuncis? Qu? passa amb els anuncis produ?ts per empreses que s’han beneficiat (en aquest cas, un pla de rescat de Bush recolzat per Obama) a partir de les pol?tiques recolzades per aquesta administraci??

    Qu? passa amb “?s mig temps a Am?rica”? Doncs b?, alegre de tot! La Casa Blanca, el director de comunicacions Dan Pfeiffer Twitter, “Desament de la Ind?stria automotriu (American): Una mica Eminem i Clint Eastwood pot estar d’acord.” (. Eminem sembla llegir un gui? que va ser escrit per les mateixes persones que van escriure el gui? que Eastwood llegir) l’arquitecte de campanya d’Obama, David Axelrod, a Twitter: “Un lloc de gran abast Sabia que Clint disparar, o simplement narrar.?”

    Hmm. No estic segur. David-si em permet, potser vost? podria demanar Clint o l’ag?ncia que va crear el comercial, Wieden + Kennedy, ja que s’informa, integrada per persones que han treballat en les campanyes d’Obama i les causes democr?tiques des de fa anys.

    Quant als Super PAC-el coco principal de Ciutadans Units-El Washington Examiner em va recordar, una vegada que el president va demanar als votants a “desafiar tots els funcionaris electes que es beneficia d’aquests anuncis a defensar aquesta pr?ctica o unir-se a nosaltres (a) detenir-lo.” Uniu-vos? Anem a comen?ar amb Obama, que tindr? desafiar a si mateix, aquesta mateixa setmana, la seva campanya va demanar principals recaptadors de fons per donar suport al seu propi comit? de s?per acci? pol?tica.

    ?s cert que els bruts com jo, viuen sota una noci? absurdament antiquat. Creiem que els ciutadans han de tenir llibertat per donar suport a qualsevol candidat amb els diners tot el que volgu?s, de forma an?nima, si aix? ho desitgen. Per? si PAC super i la politiqueria patrocinada per les empreses realment estan posant en perill l’estructura mateixa de la vida nord-americana-Obama va dir una vegada que eren una “amena?a per a la democr?cia”, per qu? el president de participar en aquesta orgia d’egoisme espant?s?

    Es va informar que Obama va tenir una de les seves converses internes “evoluci?” en el tema, les converses que sempre semblen evolucionar cap a Obama racionalitzar el que ?s millor per a Obama. Converses que s?n educatives. Com que la propera vegada que l’administraci? afirma que el discurs de m?s est? amena?ant la democr?cia corporativa de la parla, els PAC super, Ciutadans Units-el que realment significa ?s que m?s parla ?s posar en risc el seu segon mandat.

    1. Try Sanskrit next.

      1. Dutch,Albanian,Catalan?

        1. Google Translate tells me it’s Basque.

          1. Well, one of them was Basque.
            Another was Catalan.

            1. Missed one,Dutch,Albanian,Basque,Catalan.

            2. Missed one,Dutch,Albanian,Basque,Catalan.

        2. First one is Afrikaans actually.

      2. Sorry, Reason’s spam filter prohibits languages that don’t use the latin alphabet.

        1. I’m not sorry, senator. You seem to have a lot of time to type stuff no one can or will read.
          Do you have a point other than just throwing dirt on the floor?

        2. Well, aren’t you just too precious for words, Senator!

  17. Gojira, my dogs’ names, in order of acquisition:

    Eddie: beagle rescue- and the dumbest animal God ever put on this earth, but a nice dog

    Blue: 100 lb yellow lab. Blue was the color of the breeder’s collar when we got him, so….

    Lexie: rescue mutt, female. Like Lexie McAskill (see also: Scottish bagpipe tune names)

    Buddy: rescue black lab mix – that was his name when we got him

    Dofie: rescue daschund/papillon mix- 8 pounds of “don’t FUCK with me!” – my girls used to misspeak Dorothy’s name in Wiz of Oz (“Dofie”) when they were little – and this dog’s from Kansas, so….Dofie. She’s a mole/rat/chipmunk killer nonpariel, and DOMINATES the other dogs big time.

    Now I want to drive home to see my dogs…:( Have fun with your new best friend!

  18. I’m just gonna drop this here for all you reasonoids.…..wuql9c.jpg

    1. I was eating dinner asshole!

      1. So was he

        1. +1.

          I thought he was yodeling.

          1. The echo….echo….echo

            So I said to my girlfriend, “damn you got a big pussy, damn you got a big pussy”.

            She said, “you didn’t have to say it twice”.

            I said, “I didn’t”.

    2. brutal…

    3. See, a sugar Tax will save lives.

  19. Clint Eastwood is old and goofy. Obama’s people pulled a fast one on him.

  20. U nedjelju Super Bowl, Amerika je bila tretirana u najskuplji politi?ke reklame u povijesti, doveo do vas-Chrysler pod nazivom “To je poluvrijeme u Americi.”

    U nizu bljutav ne sequiturs, Clint Eastwood je ?ljunkovita glas zabodena obe?anje o grad-ne, nacije na dr?avne ovisnosti, tvrde?i da su “ljudi iz Detroita” izgubili gotovo sve, ali zato ?to smo “mi” izdvajali zajedno “Motor Grad se bori again “-bu?enje, urli?e, pro?eta s ameri?kim pijesak-mi smo pre?ivjeli.

    Ili, neki bi mogli re?i, nakon ?to vijak dionika, odbacivanje pravne ugovore, rewarding propalih poslovnih modela (dok je ka?njavanje onih koji zapo?ljavaju boljih) i pridr?avaju poreznim obveznicima sindikata masti mirovinskog kartici, Amerika dobila heaping ?lica administracija predsjednika Obame gospodarske politike.

    Bilo kako bilo, to je ?udno da nismo ?uli mnogo hvata o “korporativizma”, oligarhija i gra?ana United, iako korporacija sponzorira kampanju mjesto postavio predsjednikovu ponovnog izbora pri?u, a lijepo. Sada, nemam govedinu s Chrysler je pokretanje kampanje oglas, ali stvar je da ako Obama je imao svoj put, republikanci ?e imati dobar predmet za zabranu ove vrste politikanstvo. Znate, za dobrobit demokracije.

    Mo?da ?ete se sjetiti da je Vrhovni sud gra?ani United protiv Savezna izborna komisija odluka okupljenih oko sposobnosti korporacije u zrak je dokumentarni film kriti?ki od tada kandidata Hillary Clinton. U svom prvom slu?aju kao zamjenik generalnog za Obamine administracije, u stvari, sada?nji Vrhovni sud pravde Elena Kagan je oti?ao tako daleko da tvrde da je savezna vlada trebala bi biti ovla?tena zabraniti knjige, ako Washington smatra da iznose “politi?ke predizborna kampanja”. Neka je samo re?i duh Voltaire nije ba? ogromna u Washingtonu ovih dana.

    Vi svibanj tako?er zapamtiti da kada je Ford objavio TV oglas hvale?i svoju inovativnu strategiju natje?u bez poreznih obveznika ljubavi (malo mita sama), Bijela ku?a je navodno razjario, gledanje Ford obranu od slobodnog poduzetni?tva kao napad na predsjednika. Nepotrebno je re?i, upsetting ovu upravu je lo?e za posao, a Ford je povukao oglas.

    ?to je reklama? ?to je reklama proizvedenih od strane tvrtke koje imaju koristi (u ovom slu?aju, Bush spa?avanja podr?ava Obamu) iz politike koje podr?ava ovaj uprave?

    ?to je “To je poluvrijeme u Americi?” Pa, ?ivjeli diljem! Bijela ku?a je direktor komunikacija Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Spremam (ameri?ki) Auto Industrija: Ne?to Eminem i Clint Eastwood mogu slo?iti.” (. Eminem je navodno pro?itao scenarij koji je napisao isti ljudi koji su pisali scenarij da Eastwood ?itati) Obamina kampanja arhitekt David Axelrod, tweeted: “Sna?ni mjesto Jeste Clint puca to, ili ga samo ispri?ati.?”

    Hmm. Niste sigurni. David-ako mogu-mo?da te mogao pitati Clinta ili agenciju koja je stvorila komercijalne, Wieden + Kennedy, jer se navodno je osoblje ljudi koji su radili na kampanji Obame i demokratske uzroka godinama.

    ?to se ti?e onih super-PAC glavni bauk gra?ana United-Washington ispitiva? me podsjetio, predsjednik je jednom upitao bira?e da “izazov svaki izabrani du?nosnik Tko ima koristi od tih oglasa da brani tu praksu ili pridru?ite nam se (ne) ga mo?e zaustaviti.” Pridru?ite nam se? Po?nimo s Obamom, koji ?e morati da se osporiti, kao ?to je ovaj tjedan, njegova kampanja pitao top fundraisers kako bi podr?ao svoj super politi?ku akciju odbor.

    Dodu?e, divljake poput mene ?ive pod preposterously drevnog pojma. Vjerujemo da gra?ani trebaju biti slobodni kako bi podr?ao kandidata s bilo toliko novca kao i oni ?eljeli, anonimno, ako oni ?ele. Ali ako super PAC i korporacija sponzorira politikanstvo stvarno ugro?avaju samu tkaninu ameri?kog ?ivota Obame jednom tvrdio da su “prijetnja demokraciji”-za?to bi predsjednik sudjeluje u ovom orgijama od jezive sebi?nosti?

    To je izvijestio da je Obama imao je jednu od svojih unutarnjih razgovora “razvojnim” o tom pitanju, razgovori da se uvijek ?ini da se razvije u Obamina racionalizaciji ?to je najbolje za Obamu. Razgovori koji su obrazovni. Budu?i da je sljede?i put administracija tvrdi da je vi?e govora prijeti demokracija-korporativni govor, super PAC, Gra?ani United-ono ?to zaista zna?i da je vi?e govora ugro?ava svoj drugi mandat.

  21. P? Super Bowl s?ndag, blev Amerika behandlet til den dyreste politiske kommercielle i historien, bragt til dig af Chrysler-kaldet “Det er Halftime i Amerika.”

    I en r?kke intetsigende de fejlslutninger, pinned Clint Eastwoods gruset stemme l?ftet om en by-nej, en nation til regeringens afh?ngighed, h?vder, at “de folk Detroit” mistet n?sten alt, men fordi “vi” trukket sig sammen og “Motor By k?mper igen “-stansning, br?lende, gennemsyret af amerikansk korn-vi overlevede.

    Eller, nogle m?ske h?vde, bores interessenter, kassere juridiske kontrakter, givende fejlslagne forretningsmodeller (mens straffe dem, der besk?ftiger bedre af slagsen) og stikker skatteydere med fagforeningernes fedt pension fanen Amerika fik en overd?nge skefuld af Obama-regeringens ?konomiske politik.

    Uanset hvad, er det m?rkeligt, at vi ikke h?rer meget griping om “korporatisme,” oligarkier og borgere United, men i en corporate-sponsoreret kampagne stedet lagt ud p? pr?sidentens genvalg fort?lling temmelig p?nt. Nu har jeg ingen oksek?d med Chrysler har k?rt en kampagne annonce, men de ting er, at hvis Obama havde sin m?de, ville republikanerne har en god sag for at forbyde denne form for politisering. Du ved, til gavn for demokratiet.

    Du kan huske, at h?jesterets Borgere United mod Federal Election Kommissionens beslutning centreret omkring muligheden af ??et selskab for at lufte en dokumentarfilm kritisk over for den dav?rende kandidat Hillary Clinton. I hendes f?rste sag, som advokat generelt for Obama-administrationen, i virkeligheden nuv?rende h?jesteretsdommer Elena Kagan gik s? langt som til at h?vde, at den f?derale regering b?r bemyndiges til at forbyde b?ger, hvis Washington vurderer, at de udg?r “politisk valgkamp.” Lad os bare sige ?nd Voltaire er ikke ligefrem skyh?je i Washington i disse dage.

    Du kan ogs? huske, at n?r Ford k?rte en tv-annonce at rose sin nyskabende strategi for at konkurrere uden skatteyder velg?renhed (lidt af en myte i sig selv), blev Det Hvide Hus efter sigende rasende, ser Fords forsvar for det frie initiativ som et angreb p? pr?sidenten. Det er overfl?digt at sige, forstyrre denne administration er d?rligt for erhvervslivet, og Ford trak annoncen.

    Hvad med reklamer? Hvad med reklamer er produceret af firmaer, som gavn (i dette tilf?lde, en Bush redningsplan underst?ttet af Obama) fra politik st?ttet af denne administration?

    Hvad med “Det er Halftime i Amerika”? N?, cheers hele vejen rundt! Hvide Hus kommunikation direkt?r Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Lagring af den (amerikanske) Auto Industri: Noget Eminem og Clint Eastwood kan blive enige om.” (. Eminem tilsyneladende l?se et script, der blev skrevet af de samme folk, der skrev manuskriptet, at Eastwood l?st) Obamas kampagne arkitekt, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Kraftfuld spot Vidste Clint skyde, eller bare fort?lle det.?”

    Hmm. Ikke sikker. David-hvis jeg kan, m?ske du kunne sp?rge Clint eller det organ, der skabte den kommercielle, Wieden + Kennedy, fordi det angiveligt er bemandet med folk, der har arbejdet p? Obamas kampagner og demokratiske ?rsager i ?revis.

    Som for de super PAC’er-den st?rste Boogeyman for borgerne Forenede The Washington Examiner mindede mig, pr?sidenten en gang spurgt v?lgerne til at “udfordre enhver folkevalgt, der drager fordel af disse annoncer for at forsvare denne praksis eller sammen med os (i) at stoppe det.” Slut dig til os? Lad os starte med Obama, der er n?dt til at udfordre sig selv, som i denne uge, spurgte hans kampagne bedste fundraisers til at underst?tte sin egen super politisk handling udvalg.

    Ganske vist b?ster som mig lever under et latterligt for?ldet begreb. Vi mener, at borgerne skal have frihed til at st?tte enhver kandidat med s? mange penge som de gerne vil-anonymt, hvis de ?nsker det. Men hvis super PACS og corporate-sponsorerede politisering virkelig bringer selve strukturen af ??amerikanske liv Obama engang p?stod, at de var en “trussel mod demokratiet”, hvorfor skulle pr?sidenten deltage i dette orgie af grusomme egoisme?

    Det blev rapporteret, at Obama havde en af ??sine interne “udviklende samtaler” p? sp?rgsm?let, samtaler, der altid synes at udvikle sig til Obamas rationalisere hvad der er bedst for Obama. Samtaler, der er p?dagogisk. Fordi n?ste gang administrationen h?vder, at mere tale truer demokratiet virksomhedsinternt tale, super PAC’er, Borgere Forenede hvad det egentlig vil betyde, at flere er tale truer sin anden embedsperiode.

  22. Op Super Bowl Sunday, werd Amerika behandeld om de duurste politieke commercieel in de geschiedenis-wordt u aangeboden door Chrysler-genaamd “Het is Halftime in Amerika.”

    In een reeks saaie niet sequiturs, Clint Eastwood’s schorre stem geprikt de belofte van een stad-nee, een natie-de overheid afhankelijkheid, te beweren dat “de mensen van Detroit” bijna alles verloren, maar omdat “wij” bij elkaar getrokken en de “Motor Stad wordt weer vechten “perforeren, brullende, doordrenkt met Amerikaanse korrel-we hebben het overleefd.

    Of sommigen misschien, beweren na het vastschroeven belanghebbenden, zich ontdoen van juridische contracten, de moeite waard is mislukt business modellen (zolang de straffen van diegenen die beter zijn) en steken de belastingbetaler met de vakbonden ‘vet pensioen tabblad Amerika kreeg een karkassen lepel van het economisch beleid van de Obama’s.

    Hoe dan ook, het vreemd is dat we niet veel horen klagen over “corporatisme”, oligarchie?n en burgers United, maar een corporate gesponsorde campagne ter plaatse aangelegd van de president herverkiezing verhaal nogal mooi. Nu, ik heb geen rundvlees met Chrysler een campagne advertentie, maar het ding is dat als Obama had zijn weg, de Republikeinen zou een goede reden voor het verbieden van dit soort politieke spelletjes. Je weet wel, voor het welzijn van de democratie.

    Wellicht herinnert u zich dat de Hoge Raad de burgers United tegen Federal Election Commission beslissing rond het vermogen van een onderneming om een ??documentaire te kritisch ten aanzien van de toenmalige kandidaat Hillary Clinton lucht. In haar eerste zaak als advocaat-generaal voor de regering-Obama, in feite, de huidige Hoge Raad Justitie Elena Kagan ging zelfs zo ver om te stellen dat de federale overheid moet de bevoegdheid krijgen om boeken te verbieden als Washington van mening is dat zij bedragen “politieke stemmenwerving.” Laten we zeggen dat de geest van Voltaire is niet bepaald sterk stijgende in Washington deze dagen.

    U mag ook niet vergeten dat toen Ford een tv-spot prees de innovatieve strategie van concurrerende zonder belastingbetaler goed doel (een beetje een mythe zelf) liep, het Witte Huis naar verluidt werd verbolgen, het bekijken van Ford’s verdediging van het vrije ondernemerschap als een aanval op de president. Onnodig te zeggen, verstoring van deze regering is slecht voor het bedrijfsleven, en Ford trok de advertentie.

    Hoe zit het met commercials? Hoe zit het met commercials geproduceerd door bedrijven die (in dit geval, een Bush bailout ondersteund door Obama) profiteerden van beleid, ondersteund door dit bestuur?

    Hoe zit het met “Het is Halftime in Amerika”? Nou, cheers all around! Witte Huis Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer getweet, “Opslaan van de (Amerikaanse) auto-industrie: Iets Eminem en Clint Eastwood eens kunnen worden over.” (. Eminem blijkbaar lezen van een script dat is geschreven door dezelfde mensen die het script schreef dat Eastwood lezen) Obama’s campagne van architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Krachtig spot Wist Clint schiet dat, of gewoon vertellen het.? ‘

    Hmm. Niet zeker. David-als ik het mag-misschien kun je vragen Clint of de dienst die de commerci?le, Wieden + Kennedy gemaakt, omdat het naar verluidt bemand door mensen die op Obama campagnes en Democratische oorzaken gewerkt jaar.

    Wat betreft die super PAC-de belangrijkste Boogeyman van Citizens United-The Washington Examiner deed me denken aan de president vroeg eens kiezers “Uitdaging elke verkozene die profiteert van deze advertenties om deze praktijk te verdedigen of ons aan te sluiten (in) te stoppen.” Doe mee? Laten we beginnen met Obama, die zal zich moeten uitdagen, zoals deze week, zijn campagne gevraagd top fundraisers om zijn eigen super politieke actiecomite te steunen.

    Toegegeven, beesten net als ik leven onder een belachelijk verouderd begrip. Wij zijn van mening dat burgers vrij zijn om een ??kandidaat te ondersteunen met zo veel geld als ze willen-anoniem, als ze willen. Maar als super PAC’s en corporate-gesponsorde politieke spelletjes zijn echt in gevaar te brengen de structuur van het Amerikaanse leven-Obama beweerde ooit waren ze een “bedreiging voor de democratie”-waarom zou de president deelnemen aan deze orgie van gruwelijke ego?sme?

    Er werd gemeld dat Obama een van zijn interne “evolueren gesprekken” over de kwestie, gesprekken die altijd lijken te evolueren naar Obama’s rationaliseren wat het beste is voor Obama had. Gesprekken die het onderwijs. Omdat de volgende keer dat de administratie beweert dat meer spraak is democratie een onderneming speech bedreigend, super PAC’s, Citizens United-wat het werkelijk betekent is dat er meer spraak is een bedreiging voor haar tweede termijn.

  23. On Super Bowl Sunday, America was Treated to the most expensive political ad in history-Brought to you by Chrysler called “It’s Half Time in America.”

    In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood’s gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city-no, a nation-to government dependency, claiming that “the people of Detroit” lost almost everything but because “we” pulled together and the “Motor City is fighting again “-punching, roaring, imbued with American grit we survived.

    Or, some might Argue, after screwing stakeholders Discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing Those Who Employ better ones) and sticking Taxpayers with the unions’ fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration’s economic policy.

    Either way, it’s odd That we did not hear much griping about “corporatism,” oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president’s re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler’s running a campaign ad, but the thing is That if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning child or politicize this cking. You know, for the good of democracy.

    You may remember That the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to Argue That Should Be empowered the federal government to ban books if Washington Deems That They amount to “political electioneering.” Let’s just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days.

    You may Also remember That When Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy or competing without Taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth Itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford’s defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Less need to say, upset ting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad.

    What about commercials? What about commercials produced by Companies That benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration?

    What about “It’s Half Time in America”? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on.” (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by The Same people who wrote the script That Eastwood read.) Obama’s campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot That, or just Narrate it?”

    Hmm. Not sure. David-if I may, maybe You could ask the agency or Clint That created the commercial, Wieden + Kennedy, Because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have Worked on Obama Democratic causes and campaigns for years.

    For those PACs axis super-the main boogeyman or Citizens United-The Washington Examiner Reminded me, the president once asked voters to “challenge every elected official who benefits from ads thesis to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it.” Join us? Let’s start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, asked his top campaign fundraisers to support his own super political action committee.

    Admittedly, Brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We Believe That Citizens Should Be free to support any candidate with as much money as they’d like-anonymously, if They Desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored police cking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life once Obama clAimED They were a “threat to democracy”-why would the president Partake in this orgy of selfishness Gruesome?

    That it was reported Obama had one of his internal “Evolving conversations” on the issue, conversations That always SEEM to evolve into Obama’s rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations That are educational. Because the next time the administration claims more That speech is threatening democracy, corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United’s really what it will mean is more That speech is threatening its second term.

    1. Senator, stuff it up your ass and get lost.

  24. Super Bowl p?hap?ev, Ameerikas on t??deldud, et k?ige kallim poliitilise reklaami ajaloo-Toodud teile Chrysler nimega “On Half Time in America.”

    Mitmetes maotu mitte sequiturs, Clint Eastwood oma r?me h??l Kinnitatud lubadus linna-no, rahvusriigi valitsuse s?ltuvus, v?ites, et “rahvas Detroit” kaotanud peaaegu k?ik, kuid kuna “meie” t?mbas kokku ja “Motor City v?itleb j?lle “, mulgustamiseks, m?irgav, l?bi imbunud American jonn me ellu.

    V?i m?ned v?ivad v?ita, p?rast kruvimiseks sidusr?hmade Vette juriidilisi lepinguid, rahuldust ei ?rimudelid (samas karistada neid, kes v?tavad t??le paremaid) ning j??des maksumaksjatele ameti?hingud rasv pension tab, Ameerikas sai kuhjaga lusikat?is Obama administratsiooni majanduspoliitikat.

    M?lemal juhul, see on veider, et me ei kuulnud palju griping about “korporatiivsust” oligarchies ja kodanikele United, kuigi ettev?tte poolt sponsoreeritud kampaania kohapeal s?testatud presidendi tagasivalimine narratiiv ?sna kenasti. N??d ma ei ole loomaliha Chrysler jooksvad kampaania reklaam, kuid asi on selles, et kui Obama oli oma teed, vabariiklased oleks hea puhul keelata lapse v?i politiseerida see cking. Sa tead, et hea demokraatia.

    Meenub, et Riigikohus kodanikele United vs Saksamaa valimiskomisjoni otsuse keskmes on v?ime ettev?tte ?hku dokumentaalfilm kriitiline siis-kandidaat Hillary Clinton. Tema esimene juhtum, kui advokaat ?ldiselt Obama administratsioon tegelikult praegune riigikohtunik Elena Kagan l?ks nii kaugele, et v?idavad, et tuleks anda f?deraalvalitsus keelata raamatuid, kui Washington leiab, et nad moodustavad “poliitiline valimiskampaania.” ?tleme lihtsalt vaimu Voltaire ei ole just h?ppeliselt Washingtonis nendel p?evadel.

    Samuti v?ite meeles pidama, et kui Ford jooksis TV ad kiites oma uuendusliku strateegia v?i konkureerivate ilma Maksumaksja heategevus (natuke m??t ise), White House oli v?idetavalt Suuttunut vaatamise Fordi kaitse vaba ettev?tluse kui r?nnakut president. V?hem vaja ?elda, ?rritunud Ting administratsiooni on halb ?ri, ja Ford t?mmatakse reklaami.

    Aga reklaamides? Aga reklaame toodetud ettev?tted kasu (antud juhul Bush kautsjoni toetas Obama) alates poliitika toetab administratsiooni?

    Aga “See on Half Time in America”? Noh, cheers k?ik ?mber! Valge Maja kommunikatsioonijuht Dan Pfeiffer tweeted “salvestamine (American) Auto Industry: Midagi Eminem ja Clint Eastwood saab kokku leppida.” (Eminem ilmselt lugeda skripti, mis on kirjutatud samad inimesed, kes kirjutas skripti, mis Eastwood lugeda.) Obama kampaania arhitekt David Axelrod, tweeted: “V?imas kohapeal. Kas Clint tulistada see v?i lihtsalt Narrate on?”

    Hmm. Ei ole kindel. David-kui nii v?ib, ?kki sa v?iks k?sida asutuse v?i Clint loonud ?ripind, Wieden + Kennedy, sest see on teadaolevalt komplekteeritakse inimesed, kes on t??tanud Obama demokraatide p?hjuste ja kampaaniate aastat.

    Neile PACS telje super-peamine Tonti v?i Kodanikud Ameerika-Washington Kontrollija tuletas mulle meelde, president k?sis kord valijate “v?ljakutse iga valitud ametnik, kes saab reklaame v?itekirja kaitsta seda tava v?i meiega liituda (in) peatumine see.” Liitu meiega? Alustame Obama, kes saab olema v?ljakutse ise, kui sel n?dalal, k?sis ta ?leval kampaania korjanduste, et toetada oma super poliitilise tegevuse komitee.

    T?si, brutes nagu mina elavad m?ttetult iganenud m?iste. Usume, et kodanikel peaks olema v?imalik toetada iga kandidaat nii palju raha kui nad tahaksid, anon??mselt, kui nad soovivad. Aga kui super PACS ja ettev?tte poolt sponsoreeritud politsei cking t?esti ohtu v?ga kangast Ameerika elu kui Obama v?itsid, et nad olid “oht demokraatiale”, miks president osalema selle orgia isekuse ?udne?

    Et teatati Obama oli ?ks tema sisemine “Arenev vestlused” teemal, vestlused, mis alati tundub, et areneda Obama ratsionaliseerida iganes on parim Obama. Vestlused, mis on haridus. Sest j?rgmine kord administratsiooni v?idab veel, et k?ne ?hvardab demokraatiat, ettev?tte k?nes, super PACS, Kodanikud Ameerika on t?esti, mida see t?hendab, on rohkem kui k?nes ?hvardab oma teiseks ametiajaks.

  25. Sa Super mangkok Linggo, America ay itinuturing na ang pinaka-mamahaling pampulitika ad sa kasaysayan-nagdala sa iyo sa pamamagitan ng Chrysler tinatawag na “Kalahating Oras sa Amerika.”

    Sa isang serye ng mga matabang hindi sequiturs, magraba voice Clint Eastwood ay pinned ang pangako ng isang lungsod-hindi, isang bansa-upang pamahalaan dependency, pagtubos na “ang mga tao ng Detroit” nawala halos lahat ngunit dahil “namin” pulled sama-sama at ang “Motor Ang lungsod ay labanan muli “-pagsuntok, nagkakaingay, tiomak sa Amerikano katapangan namin survived.

    O, ang ilang mga maaaring magtaltalan, pagkatapos screwing mga stakeholder ng Discarding legal na kontrata, rewarding nabigo modelo ng negosyo (habang punishing mga Sino gumugol ng mas mahusay na mga) at malagkit ng mga mga Taxpayers may mga unyon ng ‘taba tab ng pensiyon, ang America ay nakuha ng isang puno ng kutsara ng pang-ekonomiyang patakaran ng ang Obama pangangasiwa ng.

    Alinmang paraan, ito ay kakaiba Na hindi namin marinig magkano ang ng pagdaing tungkol sa “corporatism,” oligarchies at mga mamamayan ng Estados, kahit na isang corporate-sponsor na lugar ng kampanya inilatag muling halalan nagkukuwento ang president sa halip mabuti. Ngayon, mayroon akong walang karne ng baka na may Chrysler ng pagpapatakbo ng isang kampanya ng patalastas, ngunit bagay ay na kung Obama ay may kanyang paraan, Republicans ay may isang mahusay na kaso para ban anak o gawing pulitiko ito cking. Alam mo, para sa mga mabuting ng demokrasya.

    Maaari mong tandaan Na ang kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Mamamayan ng Estados v Federal Halalan Commission desisyon gitna paligid sa kakayahan ng isang korporasyon upang maisahimpapawid isang dokumentaryo kritikal ng pagkatapos-kandidato Hillary Clinton. Sa kanyang unang kaso bilang abogado pangkalahatang para sa Obama pangangasiwa, sa katunayan, kasalukuyang kataas-taasang hukuman Justice Elena Kagan nagpunta sa ngayon bilang sa magtaltalan na dapat na kapangyarihan ang pederal na pamahalaan upang pagbawalan ang mga libro kung ang Washington itinalaga na sila ng halaga sa “pampulitika pagkampanya.” Sabihin lang sabihin ang espiritu ng Voltaire ay hindi eksaktong salimbay sa Washington mga araw na ito.

    Maaari kang Tandaan din na kapag Ford tumakbo ng isang TV ad na pagpuri sa makabagong diskarte nito o nakikipagkumpitensya walang Ang Taxpayer kawanggawa (isang bit ng isang gawa-gawa mismo), ang White House ay reportedly incensed, tinitingnan ng Ford sa pagtatanggol ng libreng enterprise bilang isang atake sa presidente. Mas kailangan sa sabihin, taob Ting administrasyon ito ay masama para sa negosyo, at Ford pulled ng ad.

    Paano ang tungkol sa mga patalastas? Paano ang tungkol sa mga patalastas na ginawa sa pamamagitan ng kumpanya Iyon nakinabang (sa kasong ito, ang isang bailout ng Bush na suportado sa pamamagitan ng Obama) mula sa mga patakaran sa na suportado pamamagitan ng administrasyon na ito?

    Ano ang tungkol sa “Kalahating Oras sa Amerika”? Well, tagay lahat sa paligid! White House komunikasyon direktor Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Nagse-save ang (American) Industriya Auto: May Eminem at Clint Eastwood ay maaaring sumang-ayon sa.” (. Ang Eminem tila basahin ang isang script na nakasulat sa pamamagitan ng Ang Parehong mga tao na wrote ang script na iyon Eastwood basahin) Obama kampanya arkitekto, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Napakahusay na lugar ba Clint shoot, o lamang magsaysay ito.?”

    Hmm. Hindi sigurado. David-kung maaaring ko, siguro ka maaaring hilingin sa ahensya o Clint Na nilikha ang komersyal, Wieden + Kennedy, Dahil reportedly ito ay staffed sa pamamagitan ng mga tao na nagtrabaho sa sanhi ng Obama Democratic at kampanya para sa taon.

    Para sa mga PACs axis sobrang-ang pangunahing boogeyman o mamamayan ng Estados-Ang Washington tagasuri mapaalalahanan sa akin, ang presidente ng isang beses nagtanong botante sa “tutulan ang bawat inihalal na opisyal na benepisyo mula sa mga ad ng tisis upang ipagtanggol ang pagsasanay na ito o sumali sa amin (sa) pagpapahinto ito.” Sumali sa amin? Tayo’y magsimula sa Obama, na ay pagpunta sa may na hamunin ang sarili, pati na ang linggo na ito, nagtanong ang kanyang nangungunang mga fundraisers kampanya upang suportahan ang kanyang sariling sobrang pampulitikang pagkilos komite.

    Tinatanggap na, ang Brutes tulad ng sa akin ay naninirahan sa ilalim ng isang preposterously makaluma paniwala. Naniniwala kami Iyon ang mga mamamayan ay Dapat Maging libreng upang suportahan ang anumang mga kandidato na may mas maraming pera bilang sila ay gusto bang-hindi nagpapakilala, kung gusto nila. Ngunit kung ang mga sobrang PACs at corporate-sponsor na pulis cking ang talagang jeopardizing ang napaka tela ng mga Amerikano buhay sa sandaling inaangkin nila Obama ay isang “banta sa demokrasya”-bakit gusto presidente ang sumalo sa ito lasingan ng pagkamakasarili nakapandidiring?

    Na ito ay iniulat Obama ay may isa ng kanyang panloob na “nagbabagong pag-uusap” sa isyu, ang pag-uusap na iyon laging mukhang evolve sa Obama ng rationalizing anumang pinakamahusay para sa Obama. Mga pag-uusap na iyon ay pang-edukasyon. Dahil sa susunod na administrasyon ang sinasabing higit Iyon ang pagsasalita ay nagbabala demokrasya, sa corporate pagsasalita, sobrang PACs, mga mamamayan United ay talagang kung ano ang ibig sabihin ay mas Iyon ang pagsasalita ay nagbabala ang kanyang ikalawang term.

  26. Super Bowl sunnuntaina Amerikka k?sitelty kallein poliittinen mainos historian Tuonut sinulle Chrysler nimelt??n “On Half Time in America.”

    Sarjassa mit??nsanomaton kuin sequiturs, Clint Eastwood: n sora ??ni puristuksiin lupaus city-no, kansa-valtion riippuvuutta, v?itt?en, ett? “ihmiset Detroit” menetti melkein kaiken, mutta koska “me”, veti yhteen ja “Moottori Kaupunki taistelee j?lleen “-l?vistys, m?ly, t?ynn? amerikkalaisten karkeus selvisimme.

    Tai jotkut saattavat v?itt??, kun ruuvaat sidosryhm?t Discarding juridiset sopimukset, palkitsevaa ep?onnistui liiketoimintamallit (vaikka rankaiseminen, jotka ty?llist?v?t parempia) ja kiinni veronmaksajille liittojen rasva el?ke v?lilehdess? Amerikka sai kasaamista lusikallinen Obaman hallinnon talouspolitiikkaa.

    Joka tapauksessa, se on outoa, ett? emme kuule paljon griping noin “korporatismi” harvainvallan ja kansalaiset United, vaikka yrityksen tukema kampanja paikalla s??dettyihin presidentin uudelleenvalintaa kerronta melko mukavasti. Nyt minulla ei ole naudanlihaa Chryslerin k?ynniss? kampanja mainos, mutta asia on, ett? jos Obama oli h?nen tapa, republikaanit olisi hyv? asia kielt?? lapsi tai politisoida t?t? un. Te tied?tte, hyv?t demokratian.

    Saatat muistaa, ett? korkeimman oikeuden Kansalaisten United v. Federal vaalilautakunnan p??t?s keskittynyt kyky yhti? ilmaan dokumentti kriittisesti silloin-ehdokas Hillary Clinton. Kun h?nen ensimm?inen tapauksessa varaoikeuskansleri varten Obama hallinto, itse asiassa, nykyinen korkeimman oikeuden tuomari Elena Kagan meni niin pitk?lle, ett? v?itt??, ett? pit?isi olla valtuudet liittohallitus kielt?? kirjoja, jos Washington katsoo, ettei Niist? kertyy “poliittiseen ??ntenkalastuksesta.” Sanotaan vain henki Voltaire ei ole aivan huiman Washington n?in? p?ivin?.

    Saatat my?s muistaa, ett? kun Fordin juoksi tv-mainos ylist?? sen innovatiivista strategiaa tai kilpailla ilman Veronmaksaja hyv?ntekev?isyyden (hieman myytti itse), Valkoinen talo oli tiett?v?sti raivoissaan, katselu Fordin puolustaa vapaata yrityst? hy?kk?ys presidentti. V?hemm?n on sanottava, j?rkytt?? Ting t?m? hallinto on haitaksi liiketoiminnalle, ja Ford veti mainoksen.

    Ent? mainokset? Ent? mainokset tuottavat yritykset, jotka ovat hy?dytt?neet (t?ss? tapauksessa Bush bailout tukevat Obama) politiikoista tukee t?ll? hallinnolla?

    Ent? “On Half Time in America”? No, cheers ymp?ri! Valkoinen talo viestinn?n johtaja Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving (amerikkalainen) Auto Toimiala: Jotain Eminem ja Clint Eastwood voivat sopia.” (Eminem ilmeisesti lukenut k?sikirjoituksen, joka on kirjoittanut samat ihmiset, jotka kirjoittivat k?sikirjoituksen Se Eastwood lukea.) Obaman kampanja arkkitehti David Axelrod, tweeted: “Voimakas paikalla. Oliko Clint ampua, vai vain Narrate sit??”

    Hmm.. Ei varma. David, jos voin, ehk? voisit pyyt?? virastoa tai Clint T?m? loi kaupallisen, Wieden + Kennedy, koska se on tiett?v?sti ty?skentelee ihmisi?, jotka ovat ty?skennelleet Obama demokraattisesta syit? ja kampanjoita vuosia.

    Niille PAC akselin super t?rkein m?rk? tai Kansalaisten Iso-Washington Examiner muistutti minua, presidentti kysyi kerran ??nest?jille “Haastan jokaisen luottamushenkil? hy?tyv? mainoksia opinn?ytety?n puolustaa t?t? k?yt?nt?? tai liittym??n (in) sen pys?ytt?misen.” Tule? Aloitetaan Obama, joka t?ytyy haastaa itsens?, sill? t?ll? viikolla, kysyi ylh??lt? kampanja varainker?yksiesi tukea h?nen omaa eritt?in poliittisen toiminnan komitea.

    Tosin petoja kuten min? el?? mielett?m?n vanhentunut k?site. Uskomme, ett? asuvien pit?isi voida tukea kaikkia ehdokkaita niin paljon rahaa kuin he haluaisivat, anonyymisti, jos he haluavat. Mutta jos Super PAC ja yritysten tukema poliisi un todella vaarantavat hyvin kangas amerikkalaista el?m?ntapaa kun Obama sanoi menev?ns? “uhka demokratialle”, miksi presidentti mukana t?ss? orgioissa itsekkyyden karmeita?

    Ett? se kerrottiin Obama oli yksi h?nen sis?inen “Muuttuva keskustelua” aiheesta, keskustelut tuntuvat aina kehitty? Obaman j?rkeist?m?ll? mik? on paras Obama. Keskustelut, jotka ovat koulutuksen. Koska seuraavan kerran hallinto vaatii enemm?n Tuo puhe uhkaa demokratiaa, yritysten puhe, super PAH, Kansalaisten United on todella mit? se tarkoittaa on, ett? puhe uhkaa toisen kauden.

  27. Le dimanche du Super Bowl, l’Am?rique a ?t? trait?e ? l’annonce la plus ch?re dans l’histoire politique-Apport? ? vous par Chrysler appel?e ?C’est la mi-temps en Am?rique.”

    Dans une s?rie de insipides sequiturs non, la voix de Clint Eastwood graveleux ?pingl? la promesse d’une ville-pas, une nation ? la d?pendance du gouvernement, affirmant que “les gens de Detroit” ont presque tout perdu, mais parce que ?nous? a rassembl? et le moteur ” Ville se bat ? nouveau “la perforation, rugissant, impr?gn? avec American grain, nous avons surv?cu.

    Ou, certains pourraient faire valoir, apr?s vissage les parties prenantes des contrats juridiques, en ignorant les mod?les d’affaires enrichissantes en cas d’?chec, tout en p?nalisant ceux qui emploient de meilleures) et le collage des contribuables avec l’onglet des syndicats grosse pension, l’Am?rique est une cuiller?e ? soupe de la politique ?conomique de l’administration Obama.

    De toute fa?on, il est ?trange que nous n’avons pas beaucoup entendu ronchonner ? propos de ?corporatisme?, oligarchies et des citoyens-Unis, mais un spot de campagne d’entreprise parrain?e par ?nonc? de r??lection du pr?sident r?cit plut?t bien. Maintenant, je n’ai pas de viande de b?uf avec Chrysler l’ex?cution d’un campagne publicitaire, mais la chose est que si Obama avait sa fa?on, les r?publicains auraient une bonne affaire pour l’interdiction de l’enfant ou de politiser cette cking. Vous savez, pour le bien de la d?mocratie.

    Vous vous souviendrez que la Cour supr?me des citoyens-Unis c f?d?rale d?cision de la Commission ?lectorale centr?e autour de la capacit? d’une soci?t? devant diffuser un documentaire critique de l’?poque, candidat Hillary Clinton. Dans son premier cas de solliciteur g?n?ral pour l’administration Obama, en fait, le courant de la Cour supr?me Elena Kagan est all? jusqu’? soutenir que devrait ?tre habilit?e, le gouvernement f?d?ral d’interdire les livres si Washington juge que ceux montant ? ??lectoralisme politique.” Disons simplement l’esprit de Voltaire n’est pas exactement la flamb?e ? Washington ces jours-ci.

    Vous pouvez ?galement rappeler que, lorsque Ford a couru une publicit? t?l?vis?e vantant sa strat?gie d’innovation ou de comp?tition sans la charit? des contribuables (un peu d’un mythe lui-m?me), la Maison-Blanche aurait ?t? furieux, la visualisation de la d?fense de Ford de la libre entreprise comme une attaque contre le pr?sident. Moins besoin de dire, boulevers? Ting cette administration est mauvais pour les affaires, et Ford tir? de l’annonce.

    Qu’en est-il des publicit?s? Qu’en est-il des publicit?s produites par des soci?t?s qui ont b?n?fici? (dans ce cas, un plan de sauvetage de Bush soutenu par Obama) des politiques soutenues par cette administration?

    Qu’en est-il ?C’est la mi-temps en Am?rique”? Eh bien, bravo tout autour! De la Maison Blanche directeur de la communication Dan Pfeiffer tweet?, “Sauvegarde de l’industrie automobile (am?ricaine): Eminem Quelque chose et Clint Eastwood peuvent s’entendre.” (. Eminem apparemment lu un script qui a ?t? ?crit par les m?mes personnes qui ont ?crit le script qui Eastwood lire) architecte campagne d’Obama, David Axelrod, a tweet?: “spot puissant Avez Clint tirer Cela, ou tout simplement Relater.?”

    Hmm. Je ne sais pas. David, si je peut, peut-?tre Vous pourriez demander ? l’agence ou Clint qui a cr?? le commercial, Wieden + Kennedy, Parce qu’il est dot? auraient par des gens qui ont travaill? sur les causes d?mocratiques et des campagnes d’Obama depuis des ann?es.

    Pour ceux axe PAC super la principale boogeyman ou citoyens-Unis-Le Washington Examiner m’a rappel?, une fois le pr?sident a demand? aux ?lecteurs de ?remettre en question tous les ?lus qui b?n?ficie de la th?se annonces pour d?fendre cette pratique ou se joindre ? nous (en) de l’arr?ter.” Rejoignez-nous? Commen?ons par Obama, qui va devoir se remettre en question, comme cette semaine, a demand? ? ses collecteurs de fonds de campagne sup?rieurs ? soutenir son propre super comit? d’action politique.

    Certes, les Brutes, comme moi, vivent sous une notion archa?que absurdement. Nous croyons que les citoyens doivent ?tre libres de soutenir un candidat avec de l’argent autant qu’ils le voudraient-anonyme, s’ils le d?sirent. Mais si les PAC et super cking de police parrain?s par des entreprises sont vraiment mettre en p?ril le tissu m?me de la vie am?ricaine fois Obama ont affirm? qu’ils ?taient ?une menace pour la d?mocratie”, pourquoi serait le pr?sident participer ? cette orgie de l’?go?sme Gruesome?

    Cela il a ?t? signal? Obama avait un de ses internes “conversations” en ?volution sur la question, les conversations qui semblent toujours ? ?voluer vers Obama rationaliser tout le meilleur pour Obama. Conversations ? caract?re ?ducatif. Parce que la prochaine fois que l’administration pr?tend plus que la parole est qui menacent la d?mocratie, la parole des entreprises, PAC super, Citizens United est vraiment ce que cela signifie est plus que la parole est une menace de son second mandat.

  28. O domingo do Super Bowl, a Am?rica foi tratado co anuncio m?is caro da historia pol?tico-trae a vostede por Chrysler chamado “? medio vez en Am?rica”.

    Nunha serie de ins?pidos non sequitur, a voz de Clint Eastwood gravelly derrotou a promesa de unha cidade, non, unha naci?n a dependencia do goberno, alegando que “o pobo de Detroit” perdeu case todo, pero porque “n?s” tirou xunto e Motor ” cidade est? loitando de novo “perforaci?n, que ruge, imbu?do americano gran n?s sobrevivemos.

    Ou, alg?ns poden argumentar, despois parafusar as partes interesadas contratos descartando legais, recompensando modelos de negocio fallados (mentres castiga os que empregan as mellores) e unirse Contribu?ntes con gu?a dos sindicatos pensi?n de graxa, os Estados Unidos recibiron unha culler de empilhado de pol?tica econ?mica do goberno de Obama.

    En calquera caso, ? estra?o que non escoitamos moi reclamando “corporativismo”, oligarqu?as e os Cidad?ns Unidos, a?nda que un punto campa?a patrocionado establecidas narrativa do presidente reelecci?n bastante ben. Agora, eu non te?o ningunha carne coa Chrysler est? executando un anuncio de campa?a, pero o certo ? que se Obama tivo o seu cami?o, os republicanos ter?a un bo argumento para a prohibici?n de neno ou politizar esa cking. Vostede sabe, para o ben da democracia.

    Pode lembrar que os cidad?ns do Supremo Tribunal Federal United v decisi?n da Comisi?n Electoral centrado en torno ? capacidade dunha corporaci?n ao aire un documental cr?tico de Hillary Clinton ent?n candidato. No seu primeiro caso como fiscal xeral para a administraci?n Obama, de feito, actual Suprema Corte de Xustiza Elena Kagan foi tan lonxe para argumentar que deber? ser atribu?da competencia do goberno federal para prohibir libros se Washington considera que a cantidade Eles “eleitoralismo pol?tico.” N?s s? dicir que o esp?rito de Voltaire non ? o aumento en Washington os d?as de hoxe.

    Tam?n pode lembrar que, cando a Ford publicou un anuncio de TV eloxiando a s?a estratexia innovadora ou competir sen caridade Contribu?nte (un pouco de mito en si), a Casa Branca ser?a indignado, vendo Ford defensa da libre iniciativa como un ataque contra o presidente. Menos que dicir, chat Ting esta administraci?n ? malo para as empresas, e Ford tirou o anuncio.

    E canto comerciais? E sobre os comerciais producidos por empresas que se beneficiaron (neste caso, unha operaci?n de salvamento de Bush apoiado por Obama) de pol?ticas apoiadas por esta administraci?n?

    Que tal “? Half Time in America”? Ben, aplausos de todo! Casa Branca director de comunicaci?ns Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Gardar a Industria Auto (American): Algo Eminem e Clint Eastwood pode aceptar.” (. Eminem aparentemente leu un gui?n que foi escrito polas mesmas persoas que escribiron o gui?n que Eastwood ler) arquitecto da campa?a de Obama, David Axelrod, twittou: “spot Poderoso fixo Clint filmar iso, ou s? narra-lo.?”

    Hmm Non estou seguro. David se eu puidera, se cadra poder?a preguntar a axencia ou Clint Iso creou o comercial, Wieden + Kennedy, porque ? presuntamente composta por persoas que traballaron sobre as causas dem?cratas Obama e campa?as de anos.

    Para os eixe PACS super-o bicho-pap?o principal ou Citizens United-The Examiner Washington recordou-me, xa que o presidente preguntou aos electores para “desafiar todos os funcionarios electos que se beneficia de tese de anuncios a defender esta pr?ctica ou unirse a n?s (in) interrompelo.” Unirse a n?s? Imos comezar con Obama, que vai ter que desafiar a si mesmo, como esta semana, preguntou aos seus angariadores de fondos de campa?a principais para apoiar o seu comit? de acci?n propio super pol?tico.

    ? certo que, como eu Brutes vivir baixo un concepto absurdamente anticuada. Cremos que os cidad?ns deben ser libres para apoiar calquera candidato con di?eiro na medida desexa, anonimamente, se o desexan. Pero se PACS super e patrocionado cking polic?a est? realmente prexudicando o propio tecido da vida estadounidense, xa Obama afirmou que eran unha “ameaza ? democracia”, por que o presidente participar desta orx?a de ego?smo Gruesome?

    Isto foi informar Obama tivo unha das s?as conversas internas “evolucionando” sobre o tema, as conversas que parecen estar sempre evolucionando para Obama racionalizar o que ? mellor para Obama. Conversas que son educativos. Porque a pr?xima vez que o goberno afirma que a fala ? m?is ameaza a democracia, o discurso empresarial, super PACS, Cidad?ns Unidos ? realmente o que iso significa ? m?is que a fala ? ameazando seu segundo mandato.

  29. Am Super Bowl Sunday, wurde Amerika zum teuersten politischen Ad-Geschichte in Behandelte Pr?sentiert von Chrysler genannt “Es Halbzeit in Amerika ist.”

    In einer Reihe von faden Ungereimtheiten, merken sich Clint Eastwoods raue Stimme, das Versprechen einer Stadt, nein, einen Nationalstaat zu Regierung Abh?ngigkeit und behauptete, dass “die Menschen in Detroit” verloren fast alles, sondern weil “wir” einem Strang gezogen und die “Motor Stadt wird wieder k?mpfen “-Stanzen, br?llenden, mit amerikanischen Korn durchdrungen wir haben es ?berlebt.

    Oder, Manche m?gen argumentieren, nach dem Einschrauben Beteiligten Discarding rechtliche Vertr?ge, lohnende gescheiterte Gesch?ftsmodelle (w?hrend Bestrafung derjenigen, die bessere arbeit) und kleben Steuerzahler mit den Gewerkschaften “Fett Rente Registerkarte bekam Amerika einen geh?uften Essl?ffel der Wirtschaftspolitik der Obama-Regierung.

    So oder so, es ist seltsam, dass wir gar nicht viel h?ren ergreifend ?ber “Korporatismus”, Oligarchien und Citizens United, obwohl ein Unternehmen gesponserte Kampagnen-Spot angelegt des Pr?sidenten Wiederwahl Erz?hlung ziemlich sch?n. Nun, ich habe keinen Beef mit Chrysler eine Kampagne ad, aber die Sache ist, dass wenn Obama hatte seinen Weg, Republikaner w?rden ein gutes Beispiel f?r ein Verbot von Kind zu haben oder diese zu politisieren cking. Wissen Sie, zum Wohle der Demokratie.

    Vielleicht erinnern Sie sich dass der Oberste Gerichtshof der Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Entscheidung um die F?higkeit eines Unternehmens, um einen Dokumentarfilm kritischen des damaligen Kandidaten Hillary Clinton zu l?ften zentriert. In ihrem ersten Fall als Solicitor General f?r die Obama-Administration in der Tat ging derzeitigen Richter am Obersten Gerichtshof Elena Kagan so weit zu behaupten, sollte die Bundesregierung erm?chtigt werden, B?cher zu verbieten, wenn Washington Auffassung ist, dass Sie belaufen sich auf “politischen Wahlkampf.” Sagen wir einfach, der Geist von Voltaire ist nicht genau steigenden in Washington in diesen Tagen.

    Sie k?nnen sich auch daran erinnern, dass bei Ford einen TV-Spot f?r seine Innovationskultur Strategie oder konkurrierenden ohne Steuernummer N?chstenliebe (ein bisschen wie ein Mythos an sich) lief, das Wei?e Haus angeblich war erbost, Betrachten Fords Verteidigung des freien Unternehmertums als Angriff auf den Pr?sidenten. Weniger m?ssen sagen, ver?rgert Ting diese Regierung ist schlecht f?rs Gesch?ft, und Ford zog die Anzeige.

    Wie sieht es mit Werbung? Wie sieht es mit Werbung von Unternehmen, die (in diesem Fall, ein Rettungspaket von Bush Obama unterst?tzt) aus Politik dieser Regierung unterst?tzt profitierte produziert?

    Was ist mit “Es ist Halbzeit in Amerika”? Nun, cheers all around! White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving the (American) Autoindustrie: Etwas Eminem und Clint Eastwood einer Meinung.” (. Eminem scheinbar lesen ein Skript, das von den gleichen Leuten, die das Skript gelesen, dass Eastwood schrieb geschrieben wurde) Obamas Wahlkampf Architekt, David Axelrod, twitterte: “Leistungsstarke Spot Haben Clint schie?en, was sich, oder einfach nur Erz?hlen sie.?”

    Hmm. Nicht sicher. David-wenn ich kann, vielleicht k?nnten Sie die Agentur oder Clint, die das kommerzielle, Wieden + Kennedy erstellt fragen, weil es angeblich von Leuten, die auf Obama Demokratischen Ursachen und Kampagnen seit Jahren gearbeitet haben, besetzt.

    F?r diejenigen, PACs super-Achse die wichtigste Boogeyman oder Citizens United-The Washington Examiner erinnerte mich der Pr?sident fragte einmal W?hler auf “fordere jeden gew?hlten Beamten, der aus Anzeigen These zugute kommt, diese Praxis zu verteidigen, oder besuchen Sie uns (in) aufzuhalten.” Begleiten Sie uns? Fangen wir mit Obama, der zu haben, um sich selbst herausfordern wird, wie diese Woche, fragte seine Top-Kampagne Benefizveranstaltungen zu seinem eigenen Super Political Action Committee unterst?tzen.

    Zugegeben, leben Brutes wie ich unter einer l?cherlich antiquierte Vorstellung. Wir glauben, dass B?rger sollten auf jeden Kandidaten mit so viel Geld zu unterst?tzen, wie sie es gerne anonym-, wenn sie sich w?nschen. Aber wenn Super-PACs und Unternehmen gesponserte Polizei cking wirklich gef?hrden das Gef?ge des amerikanischen Lebens, sobald Obama behaupteten, sie seien eine “Bedrohung f?r die Demokratie”-warum sollte der Pr?sident in dieser Orgie des Egoismus Gruesome teilzuhaben?

    Es wurde berichtet, dass Obama hatte einen seiner internen “Evolving Gespr?che” ?ber die Frage, Gespr?che, die immer den Eindruck, in Obamas rationalisieren, was auch immer das Beste f?r Obama zu entwickeln. Gespr?che, die lehrreich sind. Weil das n?chste Mal die Regierung behauptet, dass Sprache mehr Demokratie bedrohen, Corporate Rede, super PACs, Citizens United wirklich ist, was es bedeutet, ist mehr als Rede droht seine zweite Amtszeit.

  30. Sou Super Bowl Dimanch, Amerik Yo te trete a Anons sa a pi ch? politik nan istwa-Pote nan ou pa Chrysler rele “Se mwatye tan nan Amerik la.”

    Nan yon seri de sequiturs pla ki pa, gravyee vwa Clint Eastwood an estime pwom?s la nan yon vil-Non, yon nasyon-a depandans gouv?nman an, reklame ke “moun yo nan Detroit” p?di pr?ske tout bagay men se paske “nou” rale ansanm ak mot? a ” Vil ap goumen ank? “-pwensonaj, Roaring, anprint ak Ameriken gravye nou siviv.

    Oswa, gen k?k ka diskite, apre yo fin b?z les debarase kontra legal, rekonpanse echwe mod?l biznis (pandan y ap pini Moun ki Employ pi bon moun) ak rete soude kontribyab ak tab gr?s pansyon inyon yo ‘,’ Amerik gen yon kwiyere heaping nan politik ekonomik administrasyon Obama a la.

    Nenp?t fason, li enp? nou pou nou pa t ‘tande anpil griping sou “korporatism,” oligarchi ak sitwayen Etazini, menm si yon plas kanpay antrepriz-la patwonnen mete dey? pou re-eleksyon naratif prezidan an olye joliman. Koulye a, mwen pa gen okenn vyann b?f la ak Chrysler kouri yon anons kanpay, men bagay la se ke si Obama te gen wout li, Repibliken ta gen yon ka bon pou ki ent?di timoun oswa politize sa a cking. Ou konnen, pou bon demokrasi a.

    Ou ka sonje ke sitwayen Tribinal Sipr?m nan nan Etazini v desizyon Komisyon Federal Eleksyon santre sou kapasite nan yon sosyete kote ki gen l? yon dokimant? kritik de-L? sa a, kandida Hillary Clinton. Nan ka li k?m premye jurist jeneral pou Obama administrasyon an, an reyalite, kounye a Tribinal Sipr?m Jistis Elena Kagan al tw? lwen pou diskite ki ta dwe Pouvwa gouv?nman federal la ent?di liv si Washington estime ke yo kantite lajan nan “?lectorales politik.” Kite yo jis di, Lespri Bondye a nan Voltaire se pa egzakteman soaring nan Washington jou sa yo.

    Ou kapab tou Sonje byen l? Ford kouri yon anons televizyon t’ap f? lwanj estrateji inovatif li yo oswa konpetisyon san charite Taxpayer (yon ti jan nan yon mit figi l), yo te Mezon Blanch lan te rap?te ke yo furieux, gade defans Ford la nan antrepriz gratis k?m yon atak sou prezidan an. Mwens bezwen di, fache Ting administrasyon sa a se move pou biznis, ak Ford rale anons la.

    Ki sa ki sou reklam? Ki sa ki sou reklam ki pwodui nan konpayi yo ki benefisye (nan ka sa a, yon sovtaj Bush te sip?te pa Obama) nan r?gleman sa a sip?te administrasyon?

    Ki sa ki sou “Se mwatye tan nan Amerik”? Bon, Cheers tout otou! Mezon Blanch kominikasyon direkt? Dann Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving endistri nan oto (Ameriken): Eminem yon bagay e yo Clint Eastwood kapab dak? sou”. (. Eminem aparamman li yon script ki te ekri pa moun yo menm ki te ekri t?ks la ki Eastwood li) achit?k kanpay Obama a, David Axelrod, tweeted: “pouvwa plas Eske Clint tire Sa, oswa jis rakonte li.?”

    O o. Pa s?ten. David-Si m ‘kapab, pet?t ou ka mande ajans la oswa Clint Sa te kreye kom?syal yo, Wieden + Kennedy a, paske li se te rap?te ke yo anplwaye pa jan moun ki te travay sou Obama k?z Demokratik ak kanpay pou ane.

    Pou moun ki aks PAC yo super-prensipal boogeyman la oswa Sitwayen Etazini-Washington egzaminat?-a f? m sonje, prezidan an yon fwa mande vot? yo nan “konteste tout ofisy?l eli ki benefisye de t?z Ajoute defann sa a oswa rantre nan pratik nou (nan) rete l ‘. Join nou konsa? Ann k?manse ak Obama, ki moun ki pral f? yo defi t?t li, k?m sem?n sa a, mande pou ranmase lajan t?t kanpay li sip?te pw?p t?t li Super komite politik aksyon.

    Byensir, b?t tankou m ‘viv anba yon nosyon preposterously ansyin. Nou kw? ke Sitwayen ta dwe lib sip?te nenp?t kandida ak lajan yo genyen jan yo ta renmen-anonim yo, si yo vle. Men, si PAC yo Super ak antrepriz-la patwonnen cking polis yo vr?man anpeche twal la anpil nan lavi Ameriken yon fwa Obama reklame ke yo te yon “menas nan demokrasi”-poukisa ta prezidan an patisipe nan deb?ch sa a nan egoyis ki te vreman orib?

    Ke li te rap?te Obama te gen youn nan ent?n li “konv?sasyon En” sou pwobl?m nan, konv?sasyon ki toujou sanble yo evolye nan la Obama rasyonalizan k?lkeswa sa ki pi bon pou Obama. Konv?sasyon ki gen edikasyon. Paske l? a pwochen administrasyon an pou reklamasyon plis ke diskou ap f? menas demokrasi, koperativ lapaw?l, Super PAC yo, Sitwayen Etazini vr?man ki sa ki pral vle di se plis ke diskou ap f? menas dezy?m manda li yo.

  31. A Super Bowl vas?rnap, Amerik?ban kezelt?k a legdr?g?bb politikai hirdet?st t?rt?nelem hozta meg a Chrysler ?gynevezett “Ez F?lid? Amerik?ban.”

    Egy sor ?zetlen, nem sequiturs, Clint Eastwood a kavicsos hangja beszorult az ?g?retet, hogy egy v?ros nem, egy nemzet-korm?nyzati f?gg?s?ge, azt ?ll?tva, hogy “a n?p Detroit” elvesztett szinte mindent, hanem az?rt, mert “mi” h?zta ?ssze, ?s a “Motor v?ros k?zd ism?t “-lyukaszt?, ?v?lt?s, ?titatott amerikai as t?l?lt?k.

    Vagy egyesek ?ll?tj?k, csavaroz?s ut?n ?rintettek figyelmen k?v?l hagy?sa jogi szerz?d?seket, nem kifizet?d? ?zleti modellek (a megb?ntet?se, akik foglalkoztatnak jobbak), ?s megel?gsz?nk ad?fizet?knek a szakszervezetekkel “zs?r nyugd?j lapon Amerik?ban van egy p?pozott kan?lnyi az Obama-korm?ny gazdas?gpolitik?j?nak.

    Ak?rhogy is, ez a furcsa, hogy mi nem hallunk sokat sir?nkozni a “korporatizmus,” oligarchia ?s polg?rok United, de a v?llalati ?ltal t?mogatott kamp?ny helysz?nen elrendezni az eln?k ?jrav?laszt?s?t narrat?va ink?bb sz?pen. Most nincs marhah?s Chrysler fut kamp?nya ad, de a l?nyeg az, hogy ha Obama m?r az utat, a republik?nusok lenne egy j? ?gy betilt?s?t gyermek vagy politiz?lj?k ez cking. Tudod, a j? demokr?cia.

    Tal?n eml?keztek, hogy a Legfels?bb B?r?s?g polg?ri Egyes?lt v Sz?vets?gi V?laszt?si Bizotts?g hat?rozat?t k?r? k?pes egy v?llalat a leveg?be egy dokumentumfilmet, majd a kritikus-jel?lt Hillary Clinton. Ebben az esetben az els? ?gyv?dnek ?ltal?ban az Obama adminisztr?ci?, s?t, a jelenlegi Legfels?bb B?r?s?g Elena Kagan ment olyan messzire, hogy azt ?ll?tj?k, hogy fel kell hatalmazni a sz?vets?gi korm?nyt, hogy tiltsa k?nyveket, ha Washington ?gy v?li, hogy ez a d?j “politikai v?laszt?si kamp?ny.” Mondjuk Voltaire szellem?ben nem ?ppen sz?rnyal? Washingtonban ezekben a napokban.

    ?n is eml?kezni, hogy amikor a Ford futott egy TV rekl?m dics?rte az innovat?v strat?gia vagy a versenyt?rs n?lk?li szeretet ad?fizet? (egy kis m?tosz mag?t), a Feh?r H?z ?ll?t?lag felh?bor?totta, megtekinti a Ford of Free Enterprise v?delm?t, mint t?mad?s az eln?k. Kevesebb kell mondani, ideges Ting ez a k?zigazgat?s rossz ?zlet, ?s h?zta a Ford ad.

    Mi a helyzet a rekl?mok? Mi a helyzet a rekl?mok ?ltal termelt hasznot a c?gek, amelyek (ebben az esetben a Bush ?ltal t?mogatott Obama szan?l?sa) a politik?k ?ltal t?mogatott k?zigazgat?s?

    Mi a helyzet “Ez F?lid? Amerik?ban”? H?t, cheers k?r?l! Feh?r H?z kommunik?ci?s igazgat?ja Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving az (amerikai) Aut?ipar: Valami Eminem ?s Clint Eastwood is egyet?rt.” (Eminem nyilv?nval?an olvasni egy forgat?k?nyvet ?rta, hogy ugyanazok az emberek, ki ?rta a forgat?k?nyvet Ez Eastwood olvasni.) Obama kamp?nya ?p?t?sz, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Er?teljes helysz?nen. Nem Clint l?ni Ez, vagy csak Narrate ez?”

    Hmm. Nem biztos. D?vid-ha lehet, tal?n Megk?rheted a hivatal vagy Clint, amely megteremtette a kereskedelmi, a Wieden + Kennedy, mert ?ll?t?lag l?tni olyan emberek, akik dolgoztak Obama demokrata okait ?s kamp?nyok ?vek ?ta.

    Azoknak PAC tengely szuper f? Boogeyman vagy ?llampolg?rok United-The Washington Examiner eszembe, az eln?k egyszer megk?rdezt?k szavaz?k “Kih?v?s minden v?lasztott tisztvisel?, aki r?szes?l hirdet?sek dolgozat megv?d?s?re ezt a gyakorlatot, vagy csatlakozzon hozz?nk (a) meg?ll?s is.” Csatlakozz hozz?nk? Kezdj?k Obama, aki megy, hogy vitatni mag?t, hiszen ezen a h?ten arra k?rte top fundraisers kamp?nyt t?mogat? saj?t szuper politikai cselekv?s bizotts?g.

    Igaz, barmok, mint ?n alatt ?lni, ami nevets?gesen elavult fogalom. Hisz?nk abban, hogy polg?rai sz?m?ra lehet?s?get kell, hogy t?mogassa a tagjel?lt annyi p?nzt, mert szeretn?k, n?vtelen?l, ha az, amire v?gynak. De ha szuper PAC-?s v?llalati szponzor?lt rend?rs?g cking val?ban vesz?lyezteti a sz?ved?ket, amerikai ?let ut?n Obama azt ?ll?tott?k, hogy a “fenyeget?st jelent a demokr?ci?ra”, mi?rt lenne az eln?k r?szt venni ebben az orgia az ?nz?s Borzalmas?

    Ez azt jelentett?k, Obama volt az egyik bels? “Fejl?d? besz?lget?sek” a k?rd?sben, besz?lget?sek mindig ?gy t?nik, fejl?dik Obama ?sszer?s?t?, amit a legjobb Obama. Besz?lget?sek a pedag?giai. Mert a k?vetkez? alkalommal az adminisztr?ci? azt ?ll?tja, hogy a besz?d ink?bb fenyegeti a demokr?ci?t, a v?llalati besz?d, szuper PAC, Egyes?lt ?llampolg?ri igaz?n, hogy mit fog mondani, hogy a besz?d t?bb, fenyeget a m?sodik ciklusban.

  32. ? Super Bowl sunnudaginn var Amer?ka me?h?ndla? ? d?rasta p?lit?ska augl?singuna ? s?gu-H?va?i ??r Chrysler kallast “?a? er H?lfleikssta?a ? Amer?ku.”

    ? r?? vapid ekki sequiturs, gravelly r?dd Clint Eastwood er skipsb?tur fyrirheit um borg-Nei, ?j??-til stj?rnvalda ?nau?ar, segja a? “f?lki? ? Detroit” missti n?stum allt en vegna ?ess a? “vi?” draga saman og “Motor City er a? berjast aftur “-gata, ?skrandi, imbued me? American grit vi? lifa?.

    E?a, sumir g?tu haldi? fram, eftir skr?fa hagsmunaa?ila discarding lagalega samninga, gefandi mist?kst vi?skipti l?kan (en refsa ?? sem R??a betri sj?lfur) og stafur skattgrei?endur me? fitu l?feyris st?ttarf?laga flipanum, Amer?ku f?kk heaping Spoonful af efnahagsstefnu Obama stofnunarinnar.

    Hvort heldur sem ?a? er skr?ti? a? vi? vissum ekki heyra miki? griping um “corporatism,” oligarchies og borgarar United, en ?? a? sameiginlegur-styrktara?ili herfer? blettur sett fram aftur kosningar fr?s?gn forsetans frekar fallega. N?, ?g hef ekki nautakj?t me? s Chrysler keyra herfer? augl?singu, en m?li? er a? ef Obama haf?i lei? s?na, Republicans myndi hafa g?? r?k fyrir ?v? a? banna barninu e?a politicize ?essa cking. ?? veist, til g??s l??r??is.

    ?? manst kannski a? borgarar H?star?ttar United v Federal Kosning ?kv?r?un framkv?mdastj?rnarinnar mi?ju um getu ? hlutaf?lag til a? loft heimildarmynd gagnr?ninn ? ??-frambj??andi Hillary Clinton. ? fyrra tilvikinu hennar sem Solicitor almennt fyrir Obama gj?f, ? raun, n?verandi H?stir?ttur R?ttl?ti Elena Kagan gekk svo langt a? halda ?v? fram a? ?tti a? hafa vald sambands stj?rnvalda til a? banna b?kur ef Washington telur ?ar a? ?eir upph?? til “p?lit?skrar electioneering.” Segjum bara a? anda Voltaire er ekki n?kv?mlega sv?fa ? Washington ?essa dagana.

    ?? getur einnig muna a? ?egar Ford hlj?p ? sj?nvarpinu augl?singu lofa?i n?st?rlega stefnu s?na e?a keppa ?n k?rleika skattskyldur (a hluti af a go?s?gn sig), var White House s?gn incensed, sko?a varnir Ford frj?ls fyrirt?ki sem ?r?s ? forseta. Minna ?arf a? segja, ? uppn?mi Ting ?etta gj?f er sl?mt fyrir fyrirt?ki, og Ford t?k augl?singuna.

    Hva? augl?singum? Hva? um augl?singar framleiddar af fyrirt?ki sem noti? g??s (? ?essu tilfelli, er Bush bailout sty?ja Obama) fr? stefnu sty?ur ?essa gj?f?

    Hva? um “?a? er H?lfleikssta?a ? Amer?ku”? J?ja, sk?l ? kring! Hv?ta h?si? fjarskipti forst??uma?ur Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “vista (American) Auto Industry: Eitthva? Eminem og Clint Eastwood geta veri? samm?la um.” (. Eminem vir?ist lesa handrit sem var skrifu? af sama f?lki sem skrifa?i handriti? ?a? Eastwood lesa) herfer? arkitekt Obama, David Axelrod, tweeted: “?flugur blettur Vissir Clint skj?ta ?a?, e?a bara sagt ?a?.?”

    Hmm. Ekki viss. David-ef ?g m?, kannski ?? getur be?i? um stofnun e?a Clint sem bj? ? vi?skiptalegum og Wieden + og Kennedy, ?v? ?a? er s?gn af fagf?lki me? f?lkinu sem hafa starfa? ? Obama l??r??islegum orsakir og herfer?ir ? m?rg ?r.

    Fyrir ?? PACS ?s fr?b?r helstu boogeyman e?a borgara United-Washington Pr?fd?mari Minnti mig, forseti spur?i einu sinni kj?sendur til a? “skora hvert kj?rinn emb?ttismann sem n?tur g??s af augl?singum ritger?ar a? verja ?etta starf e?a taka ??tt ? okkur (?) a? st??va ?a?.” Li?s vi? okkur? Vi? skulum byrja me? Obama, sem er a? fara a? skora sj?lfur, eins og ? ?essari viku, spur?i upp augl?singaherfer? hans fundraisers til a? sty?ja eigin fr?b?r hans p?lit?ska a?ger? nefnd.

    Vissulega lifa Brutes eins og mig undir preposterously ?reltu hugmynd. Vi? teljum a? borgarar ?tti a? vera frj?ls til a? sty?ja hva?a frambj??andi me? eins miklum peningum eins og ?eir myndu vilja-nafnlaust, ef ?eir vilja. En ef fr?b?r PACS og fyrirt?kja-styrktara?ili l?greglu cking eru ? raun a? tefla ? mj?g efni ? American l?fi ?egar Obama h?lt ?eir voru “?gnun vi? l??r??i?”-hvers vegna vildi forseti taka ??tt ? ?essu orgy af eigingirni landbei?a?ar?

    ?a? var greint fr? Obama var einn af innri hans “vaxandi samt?l um m?li?, samt?l sem alltaf vir?ast til a? ?r?ast ? s Obama einfalda hva? er best fyrir Obama. Samt?l sem eru ? n?mi. Vegna ?ess a? n?sta skipti sem gj?f heldur meira sem tal ?gnar l??r??i, fyrirt?kja r??u, fr?b?r PACS, borgara United er ? raun hva? ?a? ???ir er meira ?a? m?l er a? h?ta anna? kj?rt?mabil sitt.

  33. Di Super Bowl Minggu, Amerika telah Diobati dengan iklan politik yang paling mahal dalam sejarah-Dibawa ke anda oleh Chrysler disebut “Ini Setengah Waktu di Amerika.”

    Dalam serangkaian sequiturs non hambar, Clint Eastwood suara serak disematkan janji kota-tidak, ketergantungan bangsa kepada pemerintah, mengklaim bahwa “orang-orang Detroit” kehilangan hampir segala sesuatu tetapi karena “kita” menarik bersama-sama dan “Motor Kota bertempur lagi “-meninju, mengaum, dijiwai dengan American grit kita selamat.

    Atau, beberapa mungkin Berdebat, setelah meniduri stakeholder kontrak Pembuangan hukum, bermanfaat model bisnis gagal (sementara menghukum Mereka yang Mempekerjakan yang lebih baik) dan menempel Wajib Pajak dengan tab pensiun lemak serikat, Amerika mendapat sesendok penumpukan kebijakan ekonomi pemerintahan Obama.

    Either way, itu aneh Bahwa kita tidak mendengar banyak mengeluhkan tentang “korporatisme,” oligarki dan Citizens United, meskipun tempat kampanye perusahaan yang disponsori ditata pemilihan kembali narasi presiden lebih baik. Sekarang, saya memiliki daging sapi dengan Chrysler menjalankan kampanye iklan, tapi masalahnya itu jika Obama telah memiliki cara itu, Partai Republik akan memiliki kasus yang baik untuk melarang anak atau mempolitisasi cking ini. Kau tahu, untuk kebaikan demokrasi.

    Anda mungkin ingat Itu Warga Mahkamah Agung Amerika v federal Pemilihan keputusan Komisi berpusat di sekitar kemampuan sebuah perusahaan untuk mengudarakan dokumenter kritis kemudian-kandidat Hillary Clinton. Dalam kasus pertamanya sebagai pengacara umum bagi pemerintahan Obama, pada kenyataannya, saat Hakim Agung Elena Kagan melangkah lebih jauh dengan BERTENGKAR Itu Harus diberdayakan pemerintah federal untuk melarang buku jika Washington menganggap bahwa Mereka berjumlah “hal bekerja untuk pemilihan politik.” Anggap saja semangat Voltaire tidak tepat melonjak di Washington hari ini.

    Anda Juga mungkin ingat Itu Ketika Ford menjalankan iklan TV memuji strategi inovatif atau bersaing tanpa amal Wajib Pajak (sedikit mitos itu sendiri), Gedung Putih dilaporkan marah, melihat pertahanan Ford usaha bebas sebagai serangan terhadap presiden. Kurang perlu mengatakan, marah ting administrasi ini buruk bagi bisnis, dan Ford menarik iklan.

    Bagaimana dengan iklan? Bagaimana dengan iklan yang diproduksi oleh Perusahaan-Perusahaan diuntungkan (dalam hal ini, bailout Bush didukung oleh Obama) dari kebijakan yang didukung oleh pemerintahan ini?

    Bagaimana dengan “Ini Setengah Waktu di Amerika”? Nah, cheers seluruh! Gedung Putih direktur komunikasi Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Menyelamatkan Industri Auto (Amerika): Sesuatu Eminem dan Clint Eastwood dapat menyetujui.” (. Eminem tampaknya membaca naskah yang ditulis oleh Orang-orang sama yang menulis naskah itu Eastwood membaca) kampanye arsitek Obama, David Axelrod, tweeted: “tempat Powerfull Apakah Clint menembak itu, atau hanya Narrate itu?.”

    Hmm. Tidak yakin. David-kalau boleh saya, mungkin Anda bisa meminta lembaga atau Clint Itu menciptakan, komersial Wieden + Kennedy, Karena kabarnya dikelola oleh orang-orang yang telah Bekerja pada penyebab Obama Demokrat dan kampanye untuk tahun.

    Bagi sumbu PAC super itu hantu utama atau Citizens United-The Examiner Washington Mengingatkan saya, presiden pernah meminta pemilih untuk “menantang setiap pejabat terpilih yang menguntungkan dari tesis iklan untuk membela praktek ini atau bergabung dengan kami (di) berhenti itu.” Bergabung dengan kami? Mari kita mulai dengan Obama, yang akan harus menantang dirinya sendiri, seperti minggu ini, meminta penggalang dana puncaknya kampanye untuk mendukung komite aksi politiknya sendiri Super.

    Diakui, biadab seperti saya hidup di bawah gagasan tidak masuk akal kuno. Kami Percaya Bahwa Warga Harus bebas untuk mendukung setiap calon dengan uang sebanyak yang mereka ingin-anonim, jika Mereka Desire. Tetapi jika PAC super dan perusahaan yang disponsori cking kepolisian benar-benar membahayakan tatanan kehidupan Amerika sekali Obama menyatakan bahwa mereka adalah “ancaman terhadap demokrasi”-mengapa presiden Ambil bagian dalam pesta keegoisan mengerikan?

    Itu dilaporkan Obama memiliki salah satu internalnya “percakapan Berkembang” terhadap masalah ini, percakapan itu selalu TAMPAKNYA untuk berkembang menjadi Obama rasionalisasi apapun yang terbaik bagi Obama. Percakapan itu adalah pendidikan. Karena pada saat pemerintah mengklaim lebih Pidato mengancam demokrasi, pidato perusahaan, super PAC, Citizens United benar-benar apa itu berarti lebih Pidato mengancam istilah kedua.

  34. Ar Super Bowl D? Domhnaigh, bh? c?irithe Meirice? chun an ad is costasa? polaiti?il i stair-Tugtha chun t? ag a dtugtar Chrysler “T? s? leath ama i Meirice?.”

    I sraith de sequiturs neamh vapid, pinned gravelly Clint Eastwood guth an gealltanas na cathrach-aon, a sple?chas na t?re go dt? an rialtas, ag ?ileamh go “muintir na Detroit” cailleadh beagnach gach rud ach mar gheall ar “againn” tharraing le ch?ile agus an M?tar ” Cathrach ag troid ar?s “-pollta, roaring, imbued le Mheirice? grit sl?n againn.

    N?, d’fh?adfadh roinnt Arg?int a dheanamh, tar ?is screwing p?irtithe leasmhara conartha? Cuile?il dl?, samhlacha gn? s?s?il theip (agus a phion?s? na C? a fhost? cinn n?os fearr a) agus C?in?oc?ir? sticking leis na ceardchumainn ‘tab pinsin saill, fuair Meirice? a spoonful heaping ar bheartas eacnama?och an riarach?n Obama.

    Sl? amh?in n? sl?, t? s? corr sin nach raibh againn a chloiste?il i bhfad griping about “corporatism,” oligarchies agus do Shaor?naigh Aontaithe, c? go leagtar ar an l?thair feachtas corpar?ideach-urraithe amach an Uachtar?in atoghadh sc?al s?ch nicely. Anois, t? m? aon mairteola le Chrysler ar re?cht?il ad feachtas, ach is ? an rud sin m?s rud ? go raibh Obama a bhealach, bheadh ??Poblacht?naigh a bhfuil c?s maith do leanbh n? toirmeasc seo cking politicize. T? a fhios agat, ar mhaithe le daonlathas.

    Is f?idir leat cuimhneamh sin do Shaor?naigh na C?irte Uachtara? Aontaithe v Ch?naidhme cinneadh an Choimisi?in Toghch?in d?rithe ar chumas na corpar?ide chun aer cl?r faisn?ise chritici?il ansin-iarrth?ir Hillary Clinton. Ina ch?ad ch?s mar aturnae ginear?lta maidir le riarach?n Obama, i nd?ir?re, chuaigh reatha Ch?irt Uachtarach Breithi?nais Elena Kagan a mh?id a Arg?int a dheanamh ch?ir Go A bheith de chumhacht ag an rialtas c?naidhme chun leabhair a thoirmeasc m? mheasann Washington an m?id sin leo a “toghch?na?ochta polaiti?la.” Ligean ach a r? nach bhfuil an spiorad Voltaire go d?reach a ard? as cuimse i Washington na laethanta seo.

    Is f?idir leat cuimhneamh Chomh maith leis sin Nuair a bh? ar si?l Ford ad teilif?se ag moladh a strait?is nu?lacha n? ioma?ocha gan carthanas C?in?oc?ra (beag?n de Myth F?in), an Teach B?n bh? incensed reportedly, breathn? ar cosaint Ford ar na fiontra?ochta saor in aisce mar ionsa? ar an uachtar?n. L?ide g? a r?, hairle tr?na ch?ile is ? seo riarach?n olc do ghn?, agus Ford tharraing an ad.

    Cad mar gheall ar commercials? Cad mar gheall ar commercials arna dt?irgeadh ag na gCuideachta? Sin an tairbhe (sa ch?s seo, d’fh?irithint Bush tacaithe ag Obama) as polasaithe taca?ocht seo a riaradh?

    Cad mar gheall ar “T? s? leath ama i Meirice?”? Bhuel, cheers go l?ir ar fud! Teach B?n cumars?ide sti?rth?ir Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “a sh?bh?il ar an Tionscal Auto (American): Is f?idir Eminem Rud agus Clint Eastwood ar chomhaont? maidir le.” (. Eminem l?amh cos?il script a scr?obh go bhfuil ag na daoine c?anna a scr?obh an script a l?amh Go Eastwood) ailtire feachtas Obama, David Axelrod, tweeted: “An raibh an l?thair cumhachtacha Clint shoot sin, n? d?reach narrate ?.?”

    Hmm. N?l m? cinnte. David-m?s f?idir liom, b’fh?idir leat a d’fh?adfa? a iarraidh ar an ghn?omhaireacht n? Clint sin a crutha?odh an tr?cht?la, Wieden + Kennedy, Toisc go bhfuil s? foireann reportedly ag folks a oibrigh ar Obama c?iseanna Daonlathach agus feachtais ar feadh na mblianta.

    Chun i gcuimhne si?d ais PACS Super-an boogeyman m? n? do Shaor?naigh-Aontaithe an Scr?daitheoir Washington dom, d’iarr an Uachtar?n uair amh?in v?t?laithe “d?shl?n gach oifigeach tofa a bhaineann sochar as f?gra? tr?chtas a chosaint n? an cleachtas seo d?inn bheith p?irteach (i) stopadh ?.” B? linn? Let t?s le Obama, at? ag dul go bhfuil d?shl?n a thabhairt d? f?in, mar an tseachtain seo, d’iarr s? fundraisers feachtas barr chun tac? lena choiste gn?omh Super f?in polaiti?il.

    Admittedly, beo Brutes cos?il liomsa faoi coincheap preposterously antiquated. Creidimid gur cheart do Shaor?naigh B? saor chun tac? le haon iarrth?ir leis an airgead a oiread agus is ba mhaith leo-gan ainm, m? t? siad D?il. Ach m? t? PACS Super agus cking p?il?n? chorpar?ideach urraithe gcont?irt i nd?ir?re an creatlach an-an saol Mheirice? nuair a d’?iligh Obama Bh? siad ar “bagairt do dhaonlathas”-c?n f?th go mbeadh an t-uachtar?n P?irt a ghlacadh sa orgy de selfishness b?ile?

    Gur tuairisc?odh Obama bh? ar cheann de chuid “comhr? F?s” inmhe?nach ar an gceist, comhr?ite sin IS L?IR i gc?na? chun cinn i Obama r?as?n? is cuma cad ? is fearr le haghaidh Obama. Comhr?ite Go bhfuil oideachais. Toisc go bhfuil an ch?ad uair eile a ?il?onn an riarach?n n?os m? cainte sin t? bagairt an daonlathas, urlabhra corpar?ideach, PACS Super, t? do Shaor?naigh Aontaithe i nd?ir?re cad a bheidh s? i gceist n?os m? ? sin cainte ag bagairt a dara t?arma.

  35. Il Super Bowl Domenica, l’America ? stata trattata per l’annuncio pi? costoso della storia politico-Portato a voi da Chrysler chiamato “E ‘Half Time in America”.

    In una serie di insulsi sequitur non, la voce roca di Clint Eastwood ha appuntato la promessa di una citt?-no, una nazione, alla dipendenza del governo, affermando che “la gente di Detroit” perso quasi tutto, ma perch? “noi” tirato insieme ed il “Motor Citt? sta combattendo di nuovo “, punzonatura, ruggente, imbevuto con American grinta siamo sopravvissuti.

    Oppure, alcuni potrebbero sostenere, dopo avvitamento Scartare le parti interessate contratti legali, premiando modelli di business falliti (mentre punire coloro che impiegano di migliori) e attaccare i contribuenti con linguetta pensione grasso dei sindacati, l’America ha ottenuto un cucchiaio colmo di politica economica dell’amministrazione Obama.

    In entrambi i casi, ? strano che non abbiamo sentito molto di lamentarsi “corporativismo”, oligarchie e ai cittadini del Regno, anche se uno aziendale sponsorizzato spot della campagna di cui il presidente rielezione narrativa piuttosto bene. Ora, non ho di manzo con Chrysler ? un annuncio di campagna, ma la cosa ? che se Obama aveva un suo modo, i repubblicani avrebbero una buona ragione per vietare bambino o politicizzare questo cking. Sai, per il bene della democrazia.

    Si pu? ricordare che la Corte Suprema Citizens United v decisione della Commissione federale elettorale incentrata sulla capacit? di una societ? per un documentario in onda critica di allora candidata Hillary Clinton. Nel suo caso prima come procuratore generale per l’amministrazione Obama, infatti, attuale giudice della Corte Suprema Elena Kagan si spinse fino a sostenere che dovrebbe avere il potere al governo federale di vietare i libri se Washington ritiene che Ammontano a “propaganda elettorale politica”. Diciamo solo che lo spirito di Voltaire non ? esattamente impennata a Washington in questi giorni.

    Si pu? anche ricordare che quando Ford correva uno spot televisivo lodando la sua strategia innovativa o concorrenti senza la carit? fiscale (un po ‘un mito stesso), la Casa Bianca ? stato riferito, incensato, visualizzando la difesa di Ford della libera impresa come un attacco al presidente. Meno bisogno di dire, sconvolto ting questa amministrazione ? un male per affari, e Ford tirato l’annuncio.

    Che sulla pubblicit?? Che sulla pubblicit? prodotte da aziende che hanno beneficiato (in questo caso, un piano di salvataggio Bush sostenuto da Obama), dalle politiche sostenute da questa amministrazione?

    A proposito di “E ‘Half Time in America”? Bene, evviva tutto! Direttore delle comunicazioni della Casa Bianca Dan Pfeiffer twittato, “Salvare il (American) Industria Auto: Eminem qualcosa e Clint Eastwood possono concordare”. (. Eminem apparentemente leggere uno script che ? stato scritto dalle stesse persone che hanno scritto lo script che Eastwood letto) architetto campagna di Obama, David Axelrod, Twitter: “spot Potente ha fatto anche Clint germoglio che, o semplicemente narrare.?”

    Hmm. Non sono sicuro. David-se posso, forse si potrebbe chiedere l’agenzia o Clint che ha creato il commerciale, Wieden + Kennedy, perch? ? riferito composto da persone che hanno lavorato a cause di Obama democratici e campagne per anni.

    Per coloro che l’asse PAC super-uomo nero o il principale Cittadini Uniti-The Washington Examiner mi ha ricordato, il presidente chiese una volta gli elettori a “sfidare tutti i funzionari eletti che beneficia della tesi di annunci per difendere questa pratica o unirsi a noi (in) di fermarlo.” Unisciti a noi? Cominciamo con Obama, che ? costretta a sfidare se stesso, come questa settimana, ha chiesto ai suoi migliori raccolte di fondi della campagna per sostenere la propria super-comitato di azione politica.

    Certo, bruti come me vivono sotto una nozione assurdamente antiquato. Crediamo che i cittadini dovrebbero essere liberi di sostenere qualsiasi candidato con i soldi quanto vorrebbero-in forma anonima, se lo desiderano. Ma se PAC e super-sponsorizzato aziendale cking polizia sono veramente mettere in pericolo il tessuto della vita americana, una volta Obama ha affermato Erano una “minaccia per la democrazia”, ??perch? il presidente partecipare a questa orgia di egoismo Gruesome?

    Questo ? stato riferito Obama ha avuto una delle sue conversazioni interne “in evoluzione” sulla questione, le conversazioni che sembrano sempre trasformarsi in Obama razionalizzare ci? che ? meglio per Obama. Conversazioni che sono educativi. Dato che la prossima volta che l’amministrazione sostiene che il linguaggio ? pi? minaccia la democrazia, il discorso societario, PAC super, Citizens United ? davvero cosa vorr? dire pi? che il linguaggio ? minaccia il suo secondo mandato.

  36. In super Crater Dominica, America agitur ad maxime pretiosa politica ad in historiae obtulerunt ad te per Chrysler dicitur “Est Half Tempus in America.”

    In a series de vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood scriptor sabulosis vocem pinned promissio urbis non, gentem-ad imperium dependentia, petentem quod “populus Detroit” perdidit fere omnia sed quia “nos” trahi simul et “Motor urbem est pugnae iterum “-placebat ei pulsare, sonitus, imbutus cum American SABULUM nos superfuit.

    Aut, quidam ut allega, post futuit stakeholders exuta legalis contractus, retribuendo defecit negotium Donec (puniens Qui utimini meliores) et haerentem Taxpayers cum uniones adipe pensione tab, Americae possedi congesto COCHLEARIUM de Obama administrationis scriptor oeconomica consilium.

    Aut modo, suus impar Quod non audire multo tormina de “corporatism,” oligarchiis et Cives Britanniarum, licet corporatum-sponsored bellum macula posuit ex praeses scriptor Re-electionem narratio magis nicely. Nunc, ego non bubulae cum Chrysler scriptor currit stipendium ad, sed est Quod si Obama eius modo, Republicans esset bonum causam banning puer vel politicize hoc cking. Scitis enim bonum populi.

    Ut memento Summi aula scriptor Cives Britanniarum V. foederalis Electio Commissio arbitrium sitas circa facultatem alicujus ad a’ri documentali discrimine de tunc candidatus Hillary Clinton. In primo ut sollici generali Obama administrationem, in facto, current Summi aula iustitia Elena Kagan abiit usque ad allega esset datum foederati imperium ad ban librorum si Washington aestimat Quod moles ad “politica PETITIO.” Fiat iusta dicere spiritus Voltaire est non prorsus lapsae in Washington haec dies.

    Ut memento cum Ford cucurrit TV ad laudantium eius eget porttitor consilio vel certari sine ADSIDUUS caritas (a frenum de fabula se), Albo Domus est reportedly accensus, prospiceres Ford scriptor defensionem liberi incepto impetum in praeses. Minus dicere, perturbatus permittendi hoc administrationis est mala negotium, et Ford trahi in ad.

    Quod de commercials? Quod de commercials a elit Quod profuit (in hoc casu, a Bush SOSPITALIS sustinetur Obama) a policies sustinetur per hoc administratio?

    Quod de “At Half Tempus in America”? Bene, hortaturque omnes circa! Album Domus communicationis director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Salvo (American) Auto industria Aliquid Eminem et Clint Eastwood potest conveniunt in.” (Eminem videtur legi script quod scriptum per qui scripsit script Quod Eastwood legitur.) Obama scriptor militia artifex, David Axelrod, tweeted: “potentissimum macula. Numquid Clint mitterent Quod, vel narrare eam?”

    Hmm. Non certus. David-si ut, fortasse posset petere opera vel Clint Quod creavit commercial, Wieden + Kennedy, Quia est reportedly staffed per folks qui cursus in Obama Democratic causas et stipendiis annos.

    Pro PACs axis super-principalis boogeyman vel Cives Britanniarum-De Washington Scrutator admonitus me, praeses semel interrogavit electorum ad “provocare omnis electus eunuchorum qui prodest a ads thesis ad defendere usu aut coniungere nobis (in) finis.” Coniungere nobis? Sit scriptor committitur cum Obama, qui est ad ad provocare se, ut hoc septimana, interrogavit eius summo militia fundraisers ad sustinere sua eximius politicam actionem commissionibus.

    Professo, bruta sicut me sub a praepostere uetustatem notio. Candidatus auctor libero credimus esse civium cum pecunia, sine auctore, ut libet, si voluerint. Sed si eximius PACs et corporatum-sponsored vigilum cking sunt vere periculum ipsa fabricae American vita semel Obama petita erant “minatur democratia”-cur praeses participant in hoc ORGIUM de adrogantiam METUCULOSUS?

    Quod nuntiatum Obama una eius interno “Evolving colloquia” in exitum, colloquia ut semper VIDEOR ad evolutionis in Obama scriptor rationalizing quidquid est optimum Obama. Colloquia sunt educational. Quia deinde tempore administrationis petit magis oratio est minantes democratia, corporatum oratio super PACs, Cives Britanniarum suus vere quod erit intelliguntur est oratio est imminet alterum.

  37. Gada Super Bowl sv?tdiena, Amerika tika uzskat?ta par d?rg?ko politisk?s rekl?mas v?stur?-Kas jums ar Chrysler sauc “Tas Puslaiks Amerik?.”

    S?rij? negar??gs nav sequiturs, Klints ?stvuds s gravelly balss piesprauda sol?jumu pils?tas N?, n?cijas uz valsts atkar?bu, apgalvojot, ka “Detroit? cilv?ki” zaud?ja gandr?z visu, bet jo “m?s” velk kop? un “Motor pils?ta c?n?s atkal “-caurumo?anas, r?k?ana, pies?tin?tas ar amerik??u grants m?s izdz?voja.

    Vai, da?i var?tu iebilst, p?c skr?v??anai ieinteres?taj?m izmetumu juridiskus l?gumus, motiv?jo?us neveiksm?ga biznesa mode?iem (bet sod?t tos, kas izmanto lab?ku ones) un uzl?m??anu nodok?u maks?t?jus ar arodbiedr?b?m “tauki pensiju tab, Amerik? ieguva heaping karoti Obamas administr?cijas ekonomisko politiku.

    Nu t?, tas ir d?vaini, ka m?s ne dzird?t daudz griping par “corporatism,” oligarchies un iedz?vot?jiem United, kaut uz??mumu sponsor?tu kampa?u vietas izkl?st?ts prezidentes atk?rtotu iev?l??anu st?st?juma diezgan labi. Tagad, man nav liellopu ga?a ar Chrysler darbojas kampa?as rekl?mu, bet lieta ir t?, ka, ja Obama bija savu ce?u, republik??i b?tu laba lieta, lai aizliegtu b?rnu vai politiz?t ?o cking. J?s zin?t, par labu demokr?tijai.

    J?s varat atcer?ties, ka Augst?k?s Tiesas Iedz?vot?ji Apvienot? pret V?cijas Federat?vo v?l??anu komisija l?mumu centr?ta ap sp?ju korpor?cijas gaisa dokument?lo kritiz? toreiz?jais kandid?tu Hilarijas Klintones. Sav? pirmaj? gad?jum?, jo par Obamas administr?ciju ?ener?lprokurors, paties?b?, pa?reiz?jais Augst?k?s tiesas tiesnesis Je?ena Kagan g?ja tik t?lu, ka apgalvo, ka b?tu j?pilnvaro feder?lo vald?bu aizliegt gr?matas, ja Va?ingtona uzskata, ka to apm?rs politi?u priek?v?l??anu kampa?u. ” Pie?emsim tikai teikt, Volt?ra gars nav tie?i plan?jo?s Va?ington? ?aj?s dien?s.

    J?s varat ar? atcer?ties, ka, ja Ford vad?ja TV rekl?mu slav?ja savu inovat?vo strat??iju vai konkur?jo?u bez maks?t?ja labdar?ba (mazliet m?ts pati), Balt? nama tika zi?ots, incensed, apskati Ford aizst?v?bu br?vas uz??m?jdarb?bas k? uzbrukumu prezidentu. Maz?k vajag teikt, sajukums ki ?? administr?cija ir slikts bizness, un Ford velk rekl?mu.

    Kas par rekl?m?m? Kas par rekl?m?m ra?o uz??mumi, kas izmantoju?i (?aj? gad?jum?, Bu?s san?cija atbalst?ja Obamas) no politikas atbalsta ar ??s p?rvald??

    Kas par “Tas ir Puslaiks Amerik?”? Nu, cheers visapk?rt! Balt? nama komunik?ciju direktors Dan Pfeifers tweeted, “Gl?bt (American) Auto Industry: Kaut Eminems un Klints ?stvuds var vienoties par.” (. Eminem ac?mredzot las?t skriptu, kas bija rakst?ts ar pa?iem cilv?kiem, kas rakst?ja ?o skriptu, kas Eastwood las?t) Obama kampa?a arhitekts Deivids Axelrod, tweeted: “Sp?c?gs vietas Vai Klints no?aut Tas, vai vienk?r?i st?st?t to?”.

    Hmm. Nav p?rliecin?ts. David-ja es var?tu, varb?t J?s var?tu l?gt a?ent?ru vai Clint kuru izveidoja komerci?lu, Wieden + Kennedy, Jo tas ir zi?ots str?d? ?aud?m, kuri ir str?d?ju?i Obama Demokr?tisko c?lo?iem un kampa?as gadiem.

    Tiem PACS ass super galvenais boogeyman vai Pilso?i United-Washington eksamin?t?js man atg?din?ja, prezidents reiz jaut?ja v?l?t?jus “izaicin?t katru v?l?tu amatpersonu, kas sniedz labumu no rekl?mas disert?ciju aizst?v?t ?o praksi vai pievienoties mums (ne) p?rtraucot to.” Pievienoties mums? S?ksim ar Obamu, kur? n?ksies apstr?d?t sevi, jo ??s ned??as, l?dza vi?a top kampa?u fundraisers, lai atbalst?tu savu super politisk?s r?c?bas komiteju.

    J?atz?st, Br?tes k? man dz?vot zem preposterously novecoju??s j?dzienu. M?s uzskat?m, ka iedz?vot?jiem j?b?t iesp?jai br?vi, lai atbalst?tu jebkuru kandid?tu ar tik daudz naudas k? vi?i grib?tu, anon?mi, ja tie v?las. Bet ja super PACS un korporat?v? sponsor?t? policija cking tie??m apdraud pa?u strukt?ru amerik??u dz?v?, kad Obama apgalvoja Vi?i bija “Draudi demokr?tijai”, k?p?c b?tu prezidents piedal?ties ?aj? or?iju egoisma gruesome?

    Ka tas tika zi?ots Obama bija viens no vi?a iek??jo “att?st?s sarunas” uz jaut?jumu, sarakstes, kas vienm?r ??iet p?rv?rsties Obamas racionaliz? k?ds ir lab?kais Obama. Sarunas, kas ir izgl?t?bas. Jo n?kamreiz administr?cija apgalvo, vair?k, ka runa apdraud demokr?tiju, korporat?vo runu, super PACS, Pilso?u Savienot?s ir patie??m to, ko tas noz?m? ir vair?k, ka runa apdraud savu otro termi?u.

  38. On Super Bowl sekmadien?, Amerika buvo Apdorota brangiausi? politin?s reklamos istorijoje Atve?tas ? J?s? “Chrysler” vadinamas “Tai Pus? Laikas Amerikoje.”

    Beztre?ciowy ne sequiturs serijos Clinto Eastwoodo “?wirowy balsas segami miestas-no, ? tautos ir ? vyriausyb?s priklausomyb?s pa?ad?, teigdama, kad” Detroite ?mon?s “prarado beveik visk?, ta?iau, nes” mes “i?kedentas kartu ir” Variklio Miestas yra kovos v?l “?tampavimo, riaumojimas, alsuoja Amerikos skaldos mes i?gyveno.

    Arba kai kurie gali teigti, po var?tais suinteresuotosioms ?alims atsikratyti teisines sutartis, palankios nepavyko verslo modelius (o baud?ia Tiems, Kas dirba geresnius tie,) ir klijuoti mokes?i? mok?toj? s?jung? riebal? pensij? skirtuke, Amerika gavo krauti Obamos administracijos ekonomikos politik? ?auk?t?.

    Bet kokiu atveju, tai keista, kad mes ne i?girsti daug R?za apie “corporatism”, oligarchija ir Pilie?iai United, nors, ?moni? remiama kampanija vietoje i?d?styti prezidento perrinkimo pasakojim? gana gra?iai. Dabar turiu jokios jautienos su Chrysler veikia reklamos kampanijos skelbim?, bet dalykas yra, kad jei Obama tur?jo savo keli?, respublikonai tur?s ger? byl? u?drausti vaik? ar politizuoti ?? cking. J?s ?inote, demokratijos labui.

    Jums gali prisiminti, kad Auk??iausiojo Teismo Pilie?iai Jungtin? v Federalin? rinkim? komisija sprendim? orientuota korporacija oro dokumentin? film? kritin? tada-kandidat?s Hillary Clinton geb?jimo. Savo solicitor apskritai d?l B. Obamos administracijos Pirmuoju atveju, kaip, i? ties?, dabartinis Auk??iausiasis Teismas teisingumo Jelena Kaganas nu?jo taip toli, kad ?rodin?ti, kad tur?t? b?ti ?galiota federalin? vald?i? u?drausti knygas, jei Va?ingtonas mano, kad jie sudaro “politin?s rinkim? kampanija.” Sakykim Voltaire dvasia n?ra tiksliai spar?iai did?jan?ias Va?ingtone ?i? dien?.

    J?s taip pat galite prisiminti, kad kai “Ford” vyko TV skelbim?, teigiamai ?vertindamos jos naujovi?k? strategij?, arba konkuruoja be mokes?i? mok?tojo labdaros mitu bit?), Baltieji r?mai buvo prane?ta, ?siutino, per?i?r?ti Ford gynyb? laisv? versl? kaip prezidento atakos. Ma?iau reikia pasakyti, nusiminusi Ting ?i administracija yra blogai verslui, ir “Ford i?kedentas skelbim?.

    K? apie reklamos? K? apie reklamos, pagamint? bendrovi?, kuriems (?iuo atveju, Obama remia Bu?o I?ganym? banko) i? tos administracijos politikos remiam??

    K? apie “Tai Pus? Laikas Amerikoje”? Na, Cheers visame! Balt?j? r?m? ry?i? direktorius Danas Sprendimas Pfeiffer tweeted “I?gelb?ti (Amerikos), automobili? pramon?s: Ka?kas Eminem ir Clintas Eastwoodas gali susitarti.” (Eminem, matyt, kad buvo para?yta pa?i? ?moni?, kurie para?? scenarij? kad Eastwoodas skaityti, skaityti scenarij?) B.Obamos kampanija architektas, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Galingas vietoje Ar Clintas ?audyti Tai, ar tiesiog j? pasakoti?”

    Hmm. Ne?inote. Davidas jei galiu, gal J?s galite papra?yti, kad agent?ra ar Clint Tai sukurt? komercin?, Wieden + Kennedy, nes, kaip prane?ama, dirba ?mon?s, kurie dirbo Obamos demokrat? prie?astys ir kampanij? met?.

    Tiems, PACS a?is super pagrindinis Boogeyman arba Pilie?iai Jungtin? Va?ingtonas Eksperto man primin? prezidentas kart? papra?? rink?jus “gin?yti kiekvien? i?rinkt? pareig?n?, kuris pasinaudojanti skelbim? disertacij? ginti ?i? praktik? arba prisijungti prie m?s? (), sustabdyti j?.” Prisijunkite prie m?s?? Prad?kime su Obama, kuris ketina mesti i???k? pats, kaip ?i? savait? papra?? savo geriausius kampanijos fundraisers remti savo super politini? veiksm? komitet?.

    Tiesa, Brutes, kaip man gyventi pagal preposterously pasenusios s?vokos. Mes manome, kad pilie?iai tur?t? tur?ti remti bet kok? kandidat?, turint? tiek daug pinig?, nes jie norite anonimi?kai, jei nori. Bet jei tikrai super PACS ir ?moni? remiama policijos cking pavojaus pa?i? strukt?r? Amerikos gyvenime, kai B. Obama teig?, kad “gr?sm? demokratijai” kod?l prezidentas dalyvauti ?iame savanaudi?kumo orgija siaubingas?

    Kad buvo prane?ta, B. Obama tur?jo vien? i? jo vidaus “besivystan?i? pokalbius” ?iuo klausimu, pokalbius, kurie visada atrodo, peraugs ? B. Obamos racionalizuoti visk?, kas geriausia Obamai. Pokalbiai Tai yra ?vietimo. , Nes kit? kart? administracija teigia, kad kalbos kelia gr?sm? demokratijai, verslo kalb?, super PACS, Pilie?i? Jungtin? tikrai k? tai reik?, kad kalbos kelia gr?sm? savo antr?j? kadencij?.

  39. Pada Super Bowl Ahad, Amerika telah Dirawat iklan politik yang paling mahal dalam sejarah Dibawa kepada anda oleh Chrysler dipanggil “Ia Separuh Masa di Amerika.”

    Dalam siri sequiturs hambar bukan, suara dilapisi dgn kecil Clint Eastwood, dihempap ??janji bandar-tidak, 1 negara-kepada kerajaan pergantungan mendakwa bahawa “rakyat Detroit” kehilangan hampir segala-galanya tetapi kerana “kita” menarik bersama-sama dan Motor ” bandar akan melawan semula “-menumbuk, mengaum, disemai dengan Amerika kersik kita terselamat.

    Atau, mungkin ada yang Hujahkan, selepas skru pihak berkepentingan Membuang kontrak undang-undang, ganjaran model perniagaan yang gagal (manakala menghukum Mereka Yang Menggunakan lebih baik orang-orang) dan melekat Pembayar cukai dengan tab pencen lemak kesatuan ‘, Amerika mendapat sesudu heaping dasar ekonomi pentadbiran Obama.

    Cara sama ada, sungguh aneh Bahawa kita tidak mendengar banyak kikir tentang “korporatisme,” oligarki dan Warga Syarikat, walaupun tempat kempen korporat yang ditaja dibentangkan naratif semula pilihan raya presiden yang agak baik. Sekarang, saya tidak mempunyai daging lembu dengan Chrysler menjalankan iklan kempen, tetapi benda itu jika Obama mempunyai cara, Republikan akan ada kes yang baik untuk mengharamkan kanak-kanak atau mempolitikkan cking ini. Anda tahu, untuk kebaikan demokrasi.

    Anda mungkin ingat Bahawa Warganegara Mahkamah Agung Amerika v. Persekutuan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya keputusan yang berpusat di sekitar keupayaan perbadanan untuk menyuarakan dokumentari kritikal ketika itu calon Hillary Clinton. Dalam kes pertama sebagai peguam am bagi pentadbiran Obama, sebenarnya, semasa Mahkamah Agung Keadilan Elena Kagan pergi setakat Hujahkan Itu Perlu memberi kuasa kepada kerajaan persekutuan untuk mengharamkan buku-buku jika Washington difikirkan yang Mereka jumlah “memenangi pilihanraya atau politik.” Mari kita katakan semangat Voltaire tidak tepat yang melambung tinggi di Washington hari ini.

    Anda Juga boleh ingat Bahawa Apabila Ford yang menyiarkan iklan TV memuji strategi inovatif atau bersaing tanpa amal Pembayar cukai (sedikit mitos Diri), Rumah Putih telah dilaporkan marah, melihat pertahanan Ford perusahaan bebas sebagai satu serangan ke atas presiden. Kurang perlu untuk mengatakan, kecewa ting pentadbiran ini adalah tidak baik untuk perniagaan, dan Ford menarik iklan.

    Bagaimana pula dengan iklan? Bagaimana dengan iklan yang dihasilkan oleh Syarikat Itu manfaat (dalam kes ini, bailout Bush yang disokong oleh Obama) dari dasar-dasar yang disokong oleh pentadbiran ini?

    Bagaimana pula dengan “Ia Separuh Masa di Amerika”? Baik, sorakan seluruh! White House pengarah komunikasi Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Penjimatan Auto Industri (American): Eminem Sesuatu dan Clint Eastwood boleh bersetuju.” (Eminem nampaknya membaca skrip yang telah ditulis oleh Sama Orang-orang yang menulis skrip Bahawa Eastwood membaca) arkitek kempen Obama, David Axelrod, tweeted: “tempat Berkuasa Adakah Clint menembak Bahawa, atau hanya menceritakan.?”

    Hmm. Tidak pasti. David jika boleh saya, mungkin Anda boleh meminta agensi atau Clint Itu mencipta komersial, Wieden + Kennedy, Kerana ia dilaporkan dikendalikan oleh orang yang telah Bekerja atas sebab-sebab dan kempen Obama Demokratik selama bertahun-tahun.

    Bagi mereka paksi PAC super-boogeyman utama atau Rakyat Amerika-Washington Pemeriksa Berpesan saya, presiden pernah bertanya pengundi untuk “mencabar tiap-tiap pegawai yang dilantik yang mendapat faedah daripada tesis iklan untuk mempertahankan amalan ini atau menyertai kami (dalam) berhenti ia.” Menyertai kami? Mari kita mulakan dengan Obama, yang akan mempunyai untuk mencabar dirinya, kerana minggu ini, ditanya pengutip dana kempen untuk menyokong jawatankuasa tindakan politik sendiri yang super.

    Diakui, Brutes yang seperti saya hidup di bawah tanggapan yang preposterously kuno. Kami Percaya Itu Warga Sekiranya user bebas untuk menyokong mana-mana calon dengan wang seperti yang banyak kerana mereka ingin-tanpa nama, jika mereka ingini. Tetapi jika PAC super dan tajaan korporat cking polis benar-benar menjejaskan fabrik kehidupan Amerika sekali Obama mendakwa mereka adalah “ancaman kepada demokrasi”-mengapa presiden akan mengambil bahagian dalam pesta ini mementingkan diri mengerikan?

    Bahawa ia telah dilaporkan Obama mempunyai salah satu daripada dalaman “perbualan Berkembang” berhubung isu itu, perbualan Itu sentiasa seolah-olah berubah menjadi Obama merasionalkan apa yang terbaik untuk Obama. Perbualan Itu adalah pendidikan. Kerana masa depan pentadbiran mendakwa Bahawa ucapan mengancam demokrasi, ucapan korporat, super PAC, Warganegara Syarikat benar-benar apa yang ia akan bermakna lebih Bahawa ucapan mengancam penggal kedua.

  40. Fuq Super Bowl ?add, l-Amerika kien trattat g?all-ad politika aktar g?oljin fl-istorja-Lilek mill Chrysler imsej?a “Huwa Nofs ?in fl-Amerika.”

    F’serje ta ‘sequiturs mhux vapid, Clint Eastwood-vu?i gravelly ippinjat-weg?da ta’ belt le, nazzjon g?all dipendenza gvern, fejn sostniet li “l-poplu ta ‘Detroit” mitluf kwa?i kollox imma g?ax “a?na” jin?ibed flimkien u l-Motor ” Belt qed ji??ieled g?al darb’o?ra “ippan?jar, roaring, ispirata Amerikana ?rar a?na baqg?u ?ajjin.

    Or, xi w?ud jistg?u jargumentaw, wara screwing partijiet interessati kuntratti rimi lura legali, mudelli ta ‘sodisfazzjon tan-negozju fallew (filwaqt li tikkastiga dawk li jimpjegaw a?jar dawk) u te?el Persuni taxxabbli ma tab-unions tal-pensjoni tax-xa?am, l-Amerika ltqajna ku??arina heaping tal-politika ekonomika tal-amministrazzjoni Obama.

    M?-?ew? na?at, huwa fard Li a?na ma tisma ?afna griping dwar “corporatism,” oligarchies u ?ittadini Uniti, g?alkemm post kampanja korporattiva sponsorjati stabbiliti tal-president elezzjoni mill-?did narrattiva pjuttost nicely. Issa, g?andi l-ebda la?am ta?-?anga ma l-Chrysler tmexxija ad kampanja, imma l-?a?a hija li jekk Obama kellu triqtu, Repubblikani jkollha ka? tajba g?all-projbizzjoni tat-tfal jew ind?il politiku dan cking. You know, g?all-?id tad-demokrazija.

    Inti tista tiftakar Illi l-Qorti Suprema ?ittadini Uniti v Kummissjoni Federali de?i?joni Elezzjoni ??entrata madwar l-abbilt? ta ‘korporazzjoni g?all-arja dokumentarju kritika ta’ imbag?ad-kandidat Hillary Clinton. Fil-ka? 1 tag?ha b?ala avukat ?enerali g?all-amministrazzjoni Obama, fil-fatt, attwali Qorti Suprema ?ustizzja Elena Kagan sa wasal li wie?ed jargumenta li jkollha s-setg?a tal-gvern federali biex jipprojbixxu kotba jekk Washington Iqis Dan Dawn jammontaw g?al “kampanja elettorali politika.” Ejja ng?idu biss l-ispirtu ta Voltaire mhuwiex e?attament jog?lew f’Washington dawn il-jiem.

    Inti tista Tiftakar ukoll Dan Meta Ford dam ad TV praising istrate?ija innovattiva tag?ha jew li jikkompetu ming?ajr karit? Taxpayer (daqsxejn ta ‘le??enda innifsu), il-White House kien rappurtat li kien incensed, wiri difi?a Ford ta’ intrapri?a ?ielsa b?ala attakk fuq il-president. Inqas b?onn li ng?idu, mqalleb diku din l-amministrazzjoni huwa ?a?in g?an-negozju, u Ford jin?ibed l-ad.

    Xi ng?idu dwar riklami? Xi ng?idu dwar riklami prodotti mill-Kumpaniji Dan bbenefikaw (f’dan il-ka?, kawzjoni Bush appo??jati mill Obama) minn politiki appo??jati minn din l-amministrazzjoni?

    Xi ng?idu dwar “Huwa Nofs ?in fl-Amerika”? Ukoll, Cheers kollha madwar! White House komunikazzjonijiet direttur Dan Pfeiffer Tweeted, “Insalvaw l-Industrija Auto (Amerikan): Eminem Xi ?a?a u Clint Eastwood jistg?u jaqblu fuq.” (. Eminem apparentement taqra b’kitba li ?ie miktub mill-istess nies li kiteb l-iskript Dan Eastwood jinqara) Obama kampanja perit, David Axelrod, Tweeted: “post Qawwija Did Clint rimja Li, jew biss narrate dan.?”

    Hmm. Mhux ?gur. David-jekk I tista ‘, forsi Inti tista’ titlob lill-a?enzija jew Clint Dan ?oloq l-kummer?jali, Wieden + Kennedy, Min?abba li huwa rrappurtat mag?mul mill folks li ?admu fuq kaw?i Demokrati?i Obama u kampanji g?as-snin.

    G?al dawk l-assi PACs super il boogeyman prin?ipali jew ?ittadini Uniti-Il-e?aminatur Washington mfakkra lili, il-president darba talab votanti li “sfida kull uffi?jal elett li tibbenefika minn reklami te?i li tiddefendi din il-prattika jew jing?aqdu mag?na (in) jwaqqafha.” Ing?aqad mag?na? Nibdew bl Obama, li huwa se jkollu li jikkontestaw lilu nnifsu, kif din il-?img?a, talab fundraisers tieg?u kampanja aqwa g?all-appo?? stess kumitat tieg?u super azzjoni politika.

    ?ertament, Brutes b?ali jg?ixu ta?t kun?ett preposterously antikwati. A?na nemmnu li ?-?ittadini ikunu ?ielsa biex jappo??a kull kandidat bil-flus kemm li tixtieq-anonimu, jekk huma hekk jixtiequ. Imma jekk PACs super u cking pulizija korporattiva sponsorjati huma verament jipperikolaw-drapp stess ta ‘?ajja Amerikana darba Obama qalu li kienu “theddida g?ad-demokrazija”-g?aliex kieku il-President ikollhom sehem f’dan orgy ta’ egoi?mu makabri?

    Dan ?ie rrappurtat Obama kellha wa?da mill interni tieg?u “konversazzjonijiet li qed jevolvi” dwar il-kwistjoni, konversazzjonijiet li dejjem jidhru li jevolvu fis Obama razzjonalizzazzjoni dak kollu li huwa a?jar g?al Obama. Konversazzjonijiet Dan huma edukattivi. Min?abba li l-?in li jmiss l-amministrazzjoni djun li ilhom aktar Li diskors qed thedded id-demokrazija, diskors korporattiva, PACs super, ?ittadini Uniti verament dak li se jfisser huwa aktar Li diskors qed thedded tieni terminu tieg?u.

  41. P? Super Bowl s?ndag, ble Amerika Behandlet til den dyreste politisk ad i historie-Brakt til deg av Chrysler kalt “Det er halvtid i Amerika.”

    I en serie flyktige ikke sequiturs, l?ste Clint Eastwoods grus stemme l?ftet om en by-nei, en nasjon til regjeringen avhengighet, hevder at ?folket i Detroit” mistet nesten alt, men fordi “vi” trukket sammen og “Motor By kjemper igjen “-hulle, br?ling, gjennomsyret amerikansk grus vi overlevde.

    Eller, kanskje noen hevder, etter skru interessenter Discarding juridiske kontrakter, givende mislykkede forretningsmodeller (mens straffe de som ansetter bedre seg) og stikker Skattytere med fagforeningene “fett pensjon kategorien fikk Amerika en heaping skje med Obama-administrasjonens ?konomiske politikk.

    Uansett er det merkelig at vi ikke h?rte mye mageknip om “korporativisme”, oligarkiene og Citizens United, men en corporate-sponset kampanjen flekk lagt ut presidentens gjenvalg fortelling heller pent. N? har jeg ingen beef med Chrysler kj?rer en kampanje annonse, men tingen er at hvis Obama hadde sin m?te, ville republikanerne har en god sak for ? forby barn eller politisere dette cking. Du vet, til beste for demokratiet.

    Du husker kanskje at H?yesteretts Citizens forente v. Federal valgkommisjonen avgj?relse sentrert rundt muligheten for et selskap ? lufte en dokumentar kritisk til dav?rende kandidat Hillary Clinton. I sin f?rste saken som advokat generelt for Obama-administrasjonen, faktisk, gikk str?mmen h?yesterettsdommer Elena Kagan s? langt som ? hevde at skal gis muligheten den f?derale regjeringen ? forby b?ker hvis Washington anser at de utgj?r “politisk electioneering.” La oss bare si ?nd Voltaire er ikke akkurat skyh?yt i Washington i disse dager.

    Du kan ogs? huske at n?r Ford kj?rte en TV-annonse lovpriste sin innovative strategi eller konkurrere uten Taxpayer veldedighet (litt av en myte selv), ble det hvite hus angivelig rasende, ser Fords forsvar av fri konkurranse som et angrep p? presidenten. Mindre behov for ? si, oppr?rt ting denne administrasjonen er d?rlig for business, og Ford trakk annonsen.

    Hva om reklame? Hva med reklame produsert av selskaper som nytte (i dette tilfellet, en Bush bailout st?ttes av Obama) fra politikk st?ttes av denne administrasjonen?

    Hva med “Det er halvtid i Amerika”? Vel, jubelropet alt rundt! White House kommunikasjonsdirekt?r Dan Pfeiffer twitret, “Saving den (amerikansk) Auto Industri: Noe Eminem og Clint Eastwood kan bli enige om.” (. Eminem tydeligvis lese et manus som var skrevet av de samme menneskene som skrev manuset som Eastwood lese) Obamas kampanje arkitekt, David Axelrod, twitret: “Kraftig sted Visste Clint skyter Det, eller bare fortelle det.?”

    Hmm. Ikke sikker. David-hvis jeg kan, kanskje du kan sp?rre byr?et eller Clint som skapte kommersielle, Wieden + Kennedy, fordi det er angivelig bemannet av folk som har jobbet p? Obamas demokratiske ?rsaker og kampanjer i ?revis.

    For de PAC aksen super-hoved Boogeyman eller Citizens United-The Washington Examiner Minte meg, presidenten en gang spurt velgerne til ?utfordre enhver valgt tjenestemann som tjener p? annonsene avhandling ? forsvare denne praksisen eller bli med oss ??(i) ? stoppe det.” Bli med oss? La oss begynne med Obama, som er n?dt til ? utfordre seg selv, som denne uken, spurte hans beste kampanje innsamlere ? st?tte sin egen super politisk handling komit?.

    Riktignok udyrene som meg leve under en preposterously antikvert forestilling. Vi tror at innbyggere b?r v?re fri til ? st?tte noen kandidat med s? mye penger som de ?nsker, anonymt, hvis de ?nsker. Men hvis super PACS og corporate-sponset politiet cking virkelig risikere selve stoffet av den amerikanske livsstilen n?r Obama hevdet at de var en “trussel mot demokratiet”-hvorfor vil presidenten Delta i denne orgie av egoisme grusomme?

    At det ble rapportert Obama hadde en av sine interne “utviklende samtaler” p? problemet, samtaler som alltid synes ? utvikle seg til Obamas rasjonalisere alt som er best for Obama. Samtaler som er l?rerikt. Fordi neste gang administrasjonen hevder flere som tale truer demokratiet, corporate tale, super PAC, er Citizens forente virkelig hva det vil bety mer den talen truer sin andre periode.

  42. ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????Na Super Bowl Sunday, Ameryka by?a traktowana do najdro?szych w historii politycznej reklamy-Udost?pnione Ci przez Chryslera o nazwie “To Po?owa czasu w Ameryce.”

    W serii nudny non sequiturs, g?os Clinta Eastwooda ?wirowe przypi?ty obietnic? miasta, nie, nar?d-to zale?no?? rz?du, twierdz?c, ?e “ludzie z Detroit” straci? prawie wszystko, ale dlatego, ?e “my” poci?gn?? ze sob? i “Motor Miasto walczy ponownie “-dziurkowanie, ryk, przepojona ameryka?skiego ?wiru prze?yli?my.

    Albo, niekt?rzy twierdz?, po wywierceniu zainteresowanym Discarding prawne um?w, nagradzaj?c nieudane modele biznesowe (podczas karanie tych, kt?rzy zatrudniaj? lepszych) i przyklejaniu podatnikom t?uszcz zwi?zkowego karcie emerytalnej, Ameryka ma Heaping ?y?k? polityki gospodarczej administracji Obamy.

    Tak czy inaczej, jest to dziwne, ?e nie s?yszeli?my wiele griping o “korporacjonizmu”, oligarchie i obywatele Zjednoczonych, cho? korporacji sponsorowany spot kampania okre?lonymi prezydenta reelekcja narracji raczej przyjemnie. Teraz nie mam beef z Chryslera prowadzenie kampanii reklamowej, ale jest to, ?e je?li Obama mia? sw?j spos?b, Republikanie b?d? mie? dobr? spraw? o zakazanie dziecku lub upolitycznienia tej cking. Wiesz, dla dobra demokracji.

    Mo?e pami?tacie, ?e Najwy?szy Trybuna? Citizens United przeciwko wybor?w federalnych decyzja Komisji wok?? zdolno?? korporacji do powietrza dokumentalny krytyczny ?wczesnego kandydata Hillary Clinton. W jej pierwszym przypadku jako prokurator generalny dla administracji Obamy, w rzeczywisto?ci obecny s?dzia S?du Najwy?szego Elena Kagan poszed? tak daleko, by twierdzi?, ?e powinna by? uprawniona rz?d federalny do wprowadzenia zakazu ksi??ek je?li Waszyngton uwa?a, ?e ??one wynosi? “politycznej kampanii wyborczej.” Powiedzmy, ?e duch Woltera nie jest dok?adnie gwa?towny wzrost w Waszyngtonie te dni.

    Mo?esz tak?e pami?ta?, ?e gdy Ford prowadzi? reklam? telewizyjn? chwal?c jego innowacyjn? strategi? lub konkurencyjne bez mi?o?ci podatnika podatku (troch? mit samodzielnie), Bia?y Dom by? podobno w?ciek?y, przegl?danie obrony Forda wolnej przedsi?biorczo?ci jako atak na prezydenta. Mniej trzeba powiedzie?, zdenerwowany Ting ta administracja jest z?e dla biznesu, a Ford wyci?gn?? reklamy.

    Co o reklamach? Co o reklamach produkowanych przez firmy, kt?re skorzysta?y (w tym przypadku, bailout Bush wspierany przez Obam?) z politykami obs?ugiwanych przez to administracji?

    Co o “To Po?owa czasu w Ameryce”? C??, okrzyki ca?ym! Bia?y Dom dyrektor ds. komunikacji Dan Pfeiffer tweeted “Zapisywanie (American) przemys? samochodowy: Eminem Co? a Clint Eastwood mo?e zgodzi? si? na”. (. Eminem najwyra?niej czyta? skrypt, kt?ry zosta? napisany przez tych samych ludzi, kt?rzy napisali skrypt, kt?ry Eastwood przeczyta?) architekt kampanii Obamy, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Pot??ny miejsce Czy Clint strzela? To, czy po prostu Narrate go.?”

    Hmm. Nie jestem pewien. David-je?li mog?, by? mo?e mog?aby zwr?ci? si? do agencji lub Clint, kt?ry utworzy? handlowych, Wieden + Kennedy, bo jest podobno obsadzone przez ludzi, kt?rzy pracowali nad Obamy przyczyn Demokratycznych i kampanie od lat.

    Dla tych, PAC o? super g??wnym Boogeyman lub Citizens United-The Washington Examiner przypomnia? mi, prezes kiedy? zapyta? wyborc?w do “wyzwanie ka?dego wybranego urz?dnika, kt?ry korzysta z prawa pracy reklamy do obrony tej praktyki lub do??cz do nas (nie) jego zatrzymania.” Do??cz do nas? Zacznijmy od Obamy, kt?ry b?dzie musia? podwa?y? sam, jak w tym tygodniu, poprosi? swoich najlepszych fundraisers kampanii w celu wspierania w?asnego super politycznego komitetu dzia?ania.

    Trzeba przyzna?, bydl?ta tacy jak ja ?yj? pod poj?ciem niedorzecznie staro?wieckie. Wierzymy, ?e obywatele powinni mie? mo?liwo?? wsparcia ka?dego kandydata z pieni?dzmi tak samo, jak chcieliby-anonimowo, je?li pragn?. Ale je?li super PAC i korporacji sponsorowany cking policja naprawd? zagra?a sam? struktur? ameryka?skiego ?ycia raz Obamy twierdzili, ?e “zagro?enie dla demokracji”, dlaczego prezydent wzi?? udzia? w tej orgii egoizmu makabryczny?

    ?e to by?o zg?aszane Obama mia? jedn? ze swoich wewn?trznych “Rozmowy ewoluuje” w tej sprawie, rozm?w, kt?re zawsze wydaj? si? ewoluowa? do Obamy racjonalizacji, co jest najlepsze dla Obamy. Rozmowy, kt?re edukacyjnych. Bo nast?pnym razem administracja twierdzi bardziej, ?e mowa jest zagro?enie demokracji, firmy mowy, super PACS, Citizens United jest naprawd? co to znaczy, ?e mowa jest bardziej zagra?a jej drug? kadencj?.

  43. No domingo do Super Bowl, a Am?rica foi tratado com o an?ncio mais caro da hist?ria pol?tico-Trazido a voc? por Chrysler chamado “? meio Vez na Am?rica”.

    Em uma s?rie de ins?pidos non sequitur, a voz de Clint Eastwood gravelly derrotou a promessa de uma cidade, n?o, uma na??o a depend?ncia do governo, alegando que “o povo de Detroit” perdeu quase tudo, mas porque “n?s” puxou junto e Motor ” Cidade est? lutando novamente “perfura??o, que ruge, imbu?do americano gr?o n?s sobrevivemos.

    Ou, alguns podem argumentar, depois parafusar as partes interessadas contratos Descartando legais, recompensando modelos de neg?cios falhados (enquanto pune aqueles que empregam as melhores) e aderindo Contribuintes com guia dos sindicatos pens?o de gordura, os EUA receberam uma colher de empilhamento de pol?tica econ?mica do governo Obama.

    De qualquer forma, ? estranho que n?o ouvimos muito reclamando “corporativismo”, oligarquias e dos Cidad?os Unidos, embora um ponto campanha patrocionado estabelecidas narrativa do presidente reelei??o bastante bem. Agora, eu n?o tenho nenhuma carne com a Chrysler est? correndo um an?ncio de campanha, mas o fato ? que se Obama teve o seu caminho, os republicanos teria um bom argumento para a proibi??o de crian?a ou politizar essa cking. Voc? sabe, para o bem da democracia.

    Voc? pode se lembrar que os cidad?os do Supremo Tribunal Federal United v decis?o da Comiss?o Eleitoral centrado em torno da capacidade de uma corpora??o ao ar um document?rio cr?tico de Hillary Clinton ent?o candidato. Em seu primeiro caso como procurador-geral para a administra??o Obama, de fato, atual Suprema Corte de Justi?a Elena Kagan foi t?o longe para argumentar que dever? ser atribu?da compet?ncia do governo federal para proibir livros se Washington considera que a quantidade Eles “eleitoralismo pol?tico.” Vamos apenas dizer que o esp?rito de Voltaire n?o ? exatamente o aumento em Washington nos dias de hoje.

    Voc? pode tamb?m lembrar que, quando a Ford publicou um an?ncio de TV elogiando a sua estrat?gia inovadora ou competir sem caridade Contribuinte (um pouco de mito em si), a Casa Branca teria sido indignado, vendo Ford defesa da livre iniciativa como um ataque contra o presidente. Menos preciso dizer, chateado ting esta administra??o ? ruim para os neg?cios, e Ford puxou o an?ncio.

    E quanto comerciais? E sobre os comerciais produzidos por empresas que se beneficiaram (neste caso, uma opera??o de salvamento de Bush apoiado por Obama) de pol?ticas apoiadas por esta administra??o?

    Que tal “? Half Time in America”? Bem, aplausos de todo! Casa Branca diretor de comunica??es Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Salvando a Ind?stria Auto (American): Algo Eminem e Clint Eastwood pode concordar.” (. Eminem aparentemente leu um roteiro que foi escrito pelas mesmas pessoas que escreveram o script que Eastwood ler) arquiteto da campanha de Obama, David Axelrod, twittou: “spot Poderoso fez Clint filmar isso, ou apenas narr?-lo.?”

    Hmm. N?o tenho certeza. David-se eu puder, talvez voc? poderia perguntar a ag?ncia ou Clint Isso criou o comercial, Wieden + Kennedy, porque ? alegadamente composta por pessoas que trabalharam sobre as causas democratas Obama e campanhas de anos.

    Para aqueles eixo PACs super-o bicho-pap?o principal ou Citizens United-The Examiner Washington lembrou-me, uma vez que o presidente perguntou aos eleitores para “desafiar todos os funcion?rios eleitos que se beneficia de tese de an?ncios a defender esta pr?tica ou se juntar a n?s (in) interromp?-lo.” Se juntar a n?s? Vamos come?ar com Obama, que vai ter que desafiar a si mesmo, como esta semana, perguntou aos seus angariadores de fundos de campanha principais para apoiar o seu comit? de a??o pr?prio super pol?tico.

    ? certo que, como eu Brutes viver sob um conceito absurdamente antiquada. Acreditamos que os cidad?os devem ser livres para apoiar qualquer candidato com dinheiro tanto quanto gostaria, anonimamente, se desejarem. Mas se PACs super e patrocionado cking pol?cia est? realmente prejudicando o pr?prio tecido da vida americana, uma vez Obama afirmou que eles eram uma “amea?a ? democracia”, por que o presidente participar desta orgia de ego?smo Gruesome?

    Isso foi relatado Obama teve uma de suas conversas internas “evoluindo” sobre o assunto, as conversas que parecem estar sempre a evoluir para Obama racionalizar o que ? melhor para Obama. Conversas que s?o educacionais. Porque a pr?xima vez que o governo afirma que a fala ? mais amea?a a democracia, o discurso empresarial, super PACs, Cidad?os Unidos ? realmente o que isso significa ? mais que a fala ? amea?ando seu segundo mandato.

  44. La Super Bowl duminic?, America a fost tratat? la anun?ul politic cel mai scump din istorie, adus la tine de Chrysler numit “Este pauz? ?n America.”

    ?ntr-o serie de sequiturs anost non, vocea lui Clint Eastwood grava fixat promisiunea unui ora?-nu, o na?iune, la dependenta de guvern, sus?in?nd c? “oamenii din Detroit” a pierdut aproape totul, dar pentru c? “am” tras ?mpreun? ?i Motor ” City este lupta din nou “-perforare, r?cne?te, ?mbibat cu American pietri? am supravietuit.

    Sau, unii ar putea argumenta, dup? ce p?r?ile interesate contractele de insurubare aruncarea juridice, recompens?nd modele e?uate de afaceri (?n timp ce pedepsirea celor care folosesc cele mai bune) ?i lipirea Contribuabilii cu fila sindicatelor de pensii de gr?sime, America a primit o lingura cu varf de politic? economic? a administra?iei Obama.

    Oricum, e ciudat c? nu am auzit de mult despre griping “corporatism,” oligarhii ?i cet??enilor Unite, desi un loc corporativ-sponsorizat de campanie este prev?zut pre?edintelui realegerea narativ destul de frumos. Acum, nu am nici carne de vit? cu cea a lui Chrysler execut? o campanie de anun?uri, dar lucru este c? ?n cazul ?n care Obama a avut drumul s?u, republicanii ar avea un caz bun pentru copilul sau interzicerea politizeze acest cking. ?tii, pentru binele democra?iei.

    Pute?i s? ne amintim c? Curtea Suprem? de cet??eni Unite ?mpotriva deciziei Comisiei Electorale Federale centrat ?n jurul valorii de capacitatea de o corporatie de a difuza un documentar critic de-atunci candidat, Hillary Clinton. ?n cazul ?n care primul ei ca avocat general, pentru administra?ia Obama, de fapt, actuala Curtea Suprem? de Justi?ie Elena Kagan mers at?t de departe ?nc?t s? sus?in? c? ar trebui ?mputernicit?, guvernul federal de a interzice c?r?ile, dac? de la Washington consider? c? au valoare de “agita?ie politic?”. S? spunem c? spiritul lui Voltaire nu este exact cre?terea ?n aceste zile la Washington.

    V? aminti?i c? atunci c?nd Ford a condus un anun? TV lauda strategia inovatoare sau concurente, f?r? caritate contribuabil (un pic de un mit ?n sine), Casa Alb? a fost raportat ?nfuriat, vizualizarea ap?rarea Ford de libera ca un atac la pre?edinte. Mai trebuie s? spun, sup?rat Ting aceast? administrare este r?u pentru afaceri, ?i Ford a tras de anun?uri.

    Ce despre reclame? Ce despre reclame produse de companii care au beneficiat (?n acest caz, un plan de salvare Bush sus?inut? de Obama), de la politicile sus?inute de aceast? administra?ie?

    Ce despre “Este pauz? ?n America”? Ei bine, noroc pe tot! Casa Alb? directorul de comunicare Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Salvarea Industrie (american), Auto: Eminem ceva si Clint Eastwood, poate fi de acord.” (. Eminem citit se pare un scenariu care a fost scris de aceia?i oameni care au scris scriptul care Eastwood citit), arhitect de campanie al lui Obama, David Axelrod, pe Twitter: “la fa?a locului puternic au Clint trage Asta, sau doar o Narrate?.”

    Hmm. Nu sunt sigur. David-m? dac? se poate, poate ai putea cere agen?iei sau Clint care a creat comercial, Wieden + Kennedy, deoarece este raportat personal de c?tre oameni care au lucrat pe Obama cauze democratice ?i campanii de ani de zile.

    Pentru cei care axa PAC super-Boogeyman principal sau cet??eni Unite-Washington Examiner mi-a amintit, pre?edintele a cerut o dat? aleg?torilor de a “contesta orice oficial ales, care beneficiaz? de la teza de anun?uri pentru a ap?ra aceast? practic? sau al?turi de noi (in) oprirea acestuia.” Al?turi de noi? S? ?ncepem cu Obama, care va trebui s? se contesta, ca ?n aceast? s?pt?m?n?, a cerut lui colectori de fonduri de top de campanie pentru a sprijini propria comisie super-ac?iune politic?.

    Desigur, brute ca mine tr?iesc sub o no?iune absurd? ?nvechit. Noi credem c? cet??enii trebuie s? fie liber s? sus?in? orice candidat cu bani la fel de mult ca le-ar dori-anonim, dac? doresc. Dar dac? PAC super si corporate-sponsorizat de cking poli?ie pun ?n pericol ?ntr-adev?r foarte tesatura de viata american Barack Obama o dat? au afirmat c? au fost o “amenin?are la adresa democra?iei” de ce-ar fi pre?edintele participa la aceast? orgie de egoism macabru?

    Asta a fost raportat lui Obama a avut una dintre convorbirile sale interne “, ?n continu? transformare”, pe problema, conversa?ii care ?ntotdeauna par s? evolueze ?n a lui Obama ra?ionalizare a ceea ce este mai bine pentru Obama. Conversa?iile care sunt de ?nv???m?nt. Pentru ca data viitoare mai mult de administrare sus?ine c? discursul este ?n pericol democra?ia, discurs corporativ, super-PAC, cet??eni Unite este ?ntr-adev?r ceea ce va ?nsemna mai mult este c? discursul este ?n pericol de-al doilea termen.

  45. Na Super Bowl nede?u, bola spracovan? tak, aby Amerika najdrah?? v hist?rii politickej reklamy, v?m prin??a Chrysler s n?zvom “Je to pol?as v Amerike.”

    V s?rii nudn? nie s? sequiturs, Clint Eastwood je v??ne hlas p?ipnul na pr?s?ub mesta, nie, n?roda-k vl?dnej z?vislos?, vyhlasova?, ?e “?udia z Detroitu” stratila takmer v?etko, ale preto?e “my” vytiahol k sebe a “Motor Mesto je znovu bojova? “, dierovanie, rev?ci, predchnut? americk?m drv? pre?ili sme.

    Alebo, niektor? by mohli argumentova?, po naskrutkovanie z??astnen? Discarding pr?vnych zml?v, odme?ovanie zl? obchodn? modely (zatia? ?o tresta? t?ch, ktor? zamestn?vaj? lep?? z nich) a bude sa dr?a? da?ov?m poplatn?kom tuku jednotliv?ch zv?zov d?chodkov?ho karte Amerika dostal vrchovat? ly?i?ku hospod?rskej politiky Obamovej administrat?vy.

    ?i tak alebo onak, je to zvl??tne, ?e sme nemali moc po?u? reptania o “korporativizmu”, oligarchia a ob?ania sa zjednotili, hoci firemn? podporovan? kampa? na mieste stanoven?mi prezidentovo znovuzvolenie pr?beh, sk?r dobre. Teraz nem?m hov?dzie m?so s Chryslerom je spustenie kampane reklamu, ale vec je, ?e by Obama mal cestu, by republik?ni maj? dobr? d?vod pre z?kaz die?a alebo politizova? toto cking. Viete, pre dobro demokracie.

    Mo?no si pam?t?te, ?e Najvy??? s?d Ob?ania Spojen?ch proti Spolkovej volebn? komisia rozhodnutie s?streden? okolo schopnosti korpor?cie vysiela? dokument?rny kritick? potom-kandid?t Hillary Clinton. Vo svojom prvom pr?pade ako prokur?tor pre Obamovej administrat?vy, v skuto?nosti, s??asn? sudca Najvy??ieho s?du Elena Kagan ?iel tak ?aleko, ?e tvrd?, ?e by mala ma? pr?vomoc feder?lnu vl?du k z?kazu knihy, ak us?di, ?e Washington Spo??vaj? v “politickej volebn? kampa?.” Povedzme, ?e duch Voltaire nie je pr?ve rast?ce vo Washingtone v t?chto d?och.

    M??ete si tie? uvedomi?, ?e ke? Ford be?al telev?znu reklamu chv?li? jeho inova?n? strat?giu a konkurova? bez toho, aby da?ovn?k Charity (trochu m?tus s?m), bol Biely dom ?dajne popudil, prehliadanie Ford obranu slobodn?ho podnikania ako ?tok na prezidenta. Menej je treba poveda?, rozru?enie Ting t?to administrat?va je zl? pre obchod, a Ford stiahol reklamy.

    Ako je to s reklamou? ?o rekl?m vyr?ban?ch spolo?nos?ami, ktor? vyu?ili (v tomto pr?pade, v?pomoc Bush podporuje Obamu) z politiky podporovan?ch touto spr?vou?

    A ?o “Je to pol?as v Amerike?” No, na zdravie v?ade okolo! Biely dom riadite? komunik?cie Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Ulo?enie (americk?) automobilov? priemysel: Nie?o Eminem a Clint Eastwood m??u dohodn??.” (. Eminem vraj ??tal scen?r, ktor? bol nap?san? rovnak?m ?u?om, ktor? nap?sal skript, ktor? Eastwood ??tanie) Obamova kampa? architekt David Axelrod, tweeted: “Siln? spot Copak Clint strie?a? to, alebo len rozpr?va? to.?”

    Hmm. Nie ste si ist?. David Ak mi, mo?no by ste mohli po?iada? agent?ru alebo Clint, ktor? vytvoril reklamu, Wieden + Kennedy, preto?e je ?dajne zamestn?va ?ud?, ktor? pracovali na Obamu pr??in demokratick?ch a kampan? rokov.

    Pre t?ch, PAC os super-hlavn? Boogeyman alebo Ob?ania Spojen?ch-Washington Examiner mi pripomenul, ?e prezident kedysi sp?tal voli?a, aby “je v?zvou pre ka?d?ho zvolen?ho ?radn?ka, ktor? m? prospech z reklamy pr?ce br?ni? t?to prax, alebo sa k n?m (ne) to zastavi?.” Pridajte sa k n?m? Za?nime Obamom, ktor? sa bude musie? spochybni? s?m seba, tento t??de?, po?iadal svoje najlep?ie kampa? na podporu dobro?innosti svoj vlastn? super politick? ak?n? v?bor.

    Je pravda, hoviad ako ja ?i? pod absurdne zastaran? pojem. Ver?me, ?e ob?ania by mali ma? mo?nos? podporova? ?iadneho kandid?ta sa to?ko pe?az?, ko?ko by chcel, anonymne, ak si to ?elaj?. Ale ak PAC super a firemn? sponzorovan? pol?cia cking skuto?ne ohrozuje samotn? ?trukt?ru americk?ho ?ivota, akon?hle Obama vyhlasoval, ?e oni s? “hrozbou demokracii”, pre?o by prezident zapoji? do tejto hroznej orgie sebectvo?

    ?e to bolo hl?sil, Obama mal jeden z jeho vn?torn? “vyv?jaj?ce sa” rozhovorov na t?mu, konverz?cia, ktor? v?dy vyvin?? sa do Obamu racionaliz?cie, ?o je najlep?ie pre Obamu. Rozhovory, ktor? s? pou?n?. Preto?e nabud?ce administrat?va tvrd?, ?e re? je viac ohrozuje demokraciu, firemn? re?, super PACS, Ob?ania Spojen?ch to naozaj to, ?o to bude znamena?, ?e re? je viac ohrozuje svoje druh? funk?n? obdobie.

  46. Na Super Bowl nedeljo, je bila Amerika obdelani tako, da najdra?je politi?ni oglas v zgodovini, Vam prina?a Chrysler imenovano “To je Pol?as v Ameriki.”

    V nizu Neslan niso sequiturs, prodnate glas Clint Eastwood je zabodena obljubo o city-Ne, naroda v odvisnosti od vlade, ?e? da ?ljudje v Detroitu” izgubila skoraj vse, ampak zato, ker “mi” potegne skupaj in “Motor Mesto je spet boj “, prebijanje, bu?anje, pre?eta z ameri?ko peska bomo pre?iveli.

    Ali pa morda nekateri trdijo, potem vija?enje zainteresirane zavre?i pravne pogodbe, nagrajevanje neuspe?nih poslovnih modelov (med kaznuje tiste, ki zaposlujejo tiste bolj?e) in z vztrajanjem davkopla?evalcem ma??obe sindikati strank kartici pokojnine, Amerika dobila heaping ?li?ko ekonomske politike Obamova administracija je.

    Kakorkoli, to je ?udno, da nismo sli?ali veliko o namestitev orodja “korporativizma,” oligarchies in dr?avljani United, ?eprav so podjetja, sponzorirana akcija mesto dolo?eno predsednikovo ponovni izvolitvi pripoved precej lepo. Zdaj nimam govedine s Chrysler te?e ogla?evalsko akcijo, vendar stvar je, da ?e Obama je svojo pot, bi republikanci imajo dober primer za prepoved otroka ali politizirati to cking. Saj ve?, za dobro demokracijo.

    Morda se spomnite, da dr?avljani vrhovnega sodi??a Zdru?enih proti Zvezni volilna komisija odlo?itev osredoto?eno na zmo?nost dru?be do letalskih dokumentarec kriti?no o Hillary Clinton takrat kandidatko. V svojem prvem primeru so Solicitor General za Obamova administracija v resnici trenutna Vrhovno sodi??e pravosodje Elena Kagan je ?el tako dale?, da trdijo, da bi bilo treba pooblastiti zvezno vlado, naj prepove knjige, ?e Washington meni, da je njihov znesek “politi?no volilne kampanje.” Kaj je pravkar rekel duh Voltaire ni ravno nara??ajo?e v Washingtonu v teh dneh.

    Morda Prav tako ne pozabite, da pri Ford tekel TV oglas hvali svojo inovativno strategijo ali tekmujejo brez ljubezni zavezanca (malo mita samem), je bila Bela hi?a domnevno Raspaljen, ogled obrambo Fordovo svobodnega podjetni?tva kot napad na predsednika. Manj je treba povedati, razburjena ting ta uprava je slabo za posel, in Ford potegnil oglas.

    Kaj pa reklam? Kaj pa reklame, ki jih Podjetja To koristi (v tem primeru, bailout Bush podpira Obamo), od politike, ki jih podpira ta uprava?

    Kaj pa “To je Pol?as v Ameriki”? No, razveseliti vse okoli! Bela hi?a komunikacije re?iser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Shranjevanje (ameri?ki) avtomobilski industriji: Nekaj ??Eminem in Clint Eastwood se lahko dogovorijo o.” (. Eminem o?itno prebral scenarij, ki je napisal isti ljudje, ki napisal scenarij To Eastwood bere) akcija arhitekt Obame David Axelrod, tweeted: “super spot Ali Clint ustrelil To, ali pa jo pripoveduje.?”

    Hmm. Ne veste. David, ?e smem, morda bi vas prosi agencijo ali Clint, ki je ustvaril komercialno, Wieden ? Kennedyja, ker je domnevno zaposleni ljudje, ki so delali na Obame vzrokov demokrati?ne in kampanj za let.

    Za tiste, PAC os super glavni Boogeyman ali Dr?avljani Zdru?enih-Washington Examiner me je spomnil, predsednik neko? vpra?al volivce, da “vsak izziv izvoljenega uradnika, ki ima koristi od teze oglasov za obrambo to prakso ali pa se nam pridru?ite (v) to prepre?ili.” Pridru?ite se nam? Za?nimo z Obamo, ki se bo moral sam izziv, saj je ta teden zaprosil svoje vrhunske kampanje fundraisers za podporo svoje super politi?ni odbor akcijski.

    Res je, zverinice, kot sem jaz ?ivel pod preposterously zastarela pojma. Prepri?ani smo, da morajo biti dr?avljani svobodno podpira vsakega kandidata s toliko denarja, kot bi radi, anonimno, ?e ?elijo. Ampak, ?e super PAC in splo?ne ga podpira policija cking so resni?no ogro?a sam strukturo ameri?kega ?ivljenja, ko Obama trdili, da so “gro?nja demokraciji”, zakaj bi predsednik udele?bi v tej orgiji s sebi?nosti grozovito?

    To so poro?ali, Obama je eden od njegovih notranjih “razvijajo?ih se” pogovore o tem vpra?anju, pogovorov, ki vedno zdi, da razvije v Obame racionalizacijo, kar je najbolj?e za Obamo. Pogovori, ki so pou?na. Ker je naslednji?, ko uprava trdi ve?, da govor ogro?a demokracijo, podjetja govor, PACS super, Dr?avljani United je res, kaj bo to pomenilo, je ve? kot govor ogro?a svoj drugi mandat.

  47. El domingo del Super Bowl, los Estados Unidos fue tratada en el anuncio pol?tico m?s caro de la historia, tra?do a usted por Chrysler llama “Es medio tiempo en Estados Unidos”.

    En una serie de insulsas incongruencias, la voz de Clint Eastwood, grava cubri? la promesa de una ciudad-no, una naci?n a la dependencia del gobierno, afirmando que “la gente de Detroit” perdi? casi todo, sino porque “nosotros” reunido y el motor ” Ciudad est? luchando de nuevo “, punzonado, rugiente, imbuido de grano estadounidense que sobrevivi?.

    O bien, algunos podr?an argumentar, despu?s de atornillar los interesados ??los contratos legales, descartando los modelos de negocio fallidos gratificantes (mientras se castiga a los que emplean otros mejores) y pegue los contribuyentes con la leng?eta de los sindicatos de pensiones de la grasa, Estados Unidos tuvo una cucharada colmada de la pol?tica econ?mica del gobierno de Obama.

    De cualquier manera, es extra?o que no se supo mucho quejarse de “corporativismo”, oligarqu?as y de los Ciudadanos Unidos, aunque un spot de la campa?a patrocinada por las empresas expuso el presidente de la reelecci?n de la narrativa bastante bien. Ahora, no tengo carne de vaca con Chrysler ejecutando una campa?a publicitaria, pero la cosa es que si Obama sali? con la suya, los republicanos tendr?an un buen caso para la prohibici?n de ni?o o politizar este cking. Ya sabes, por el bien de la democracia.

    Usted puede recordar que los ciudadanos de la Corte Suprema Unidos vs Federal Electoral Decisi?n de la Comisi?n en torno a la capacidad de una corporaci?n a emitir un documental cr?tico de la entonces candidata Hillary Clinton. En su primer caso como procurador general de la administraci?n de Obama, de hecho, el actual Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Elena Kagan fue tan lejos como para argumentar que se debe facultar al gobierno federal para prohibir los libros si Washington considera que ellos constituyen “electoralismo pol?tico”. Digamos que el esp?ritu de Voltaire no es exactamente alza en Washington en estos d?as.

    Usted puede tambi?n recordar que cuando Ford public? un anuncio de televisi?n alabando a su estrategia innovadora o competir sin la caridad Contribuyente (un poco de mito en s?), la Casa Blanca estaba indignado al parecer, viendo la defensa de Ford de la libre empresa como un ataque contra el presidente. Menos necesidad de decir, molesto Ting este gobierno es malo para los negocios, y Ford retir? el anuncio.

    ?Qu? pasa con los anuncios? ?Qu? pasa con los anuncios producidos por empresas que se beneficiaron (en este caso, un plan de rescate de Bush apoyado por Obama) a partir de las pol?ticas apoyadas por esta administraci?n?

    ?Qu? pasa con “Es mitad de tiempo en los Estados Unidos”? Pues bien, alegre de todo! La Casa Blanca, el director de comunicaciones Dan Pfeiffer Twitter, “Almacenamiento de la Industria Automotriz (American): Algo Eminem y Clint Eastwood puede estar de acuerdo.” (. Eminem parece leer un gui?n que fue escrito por las mismas personas que escribieron el gui?n que Eastwood leer) el arquitecto de campa?a de Obama, David Axelrod, en Twitter: “Un lugar de gran alcance ?Sab?a que Clint disparar, o simplemente narrar.?”

    Hmm. No estoy seguro. David-si se me permite, tal vez usted podr?a pedir a la agencia o Clint que cre? el comercial, Wieden + Kennedy, ya que se informa integrada por personas que han trabajado en causas dem?cratas Obama y campa?as desde hace a?os.

    Para los ejes PAC s?per-el principal hombre del saco o de Ciudadanos Unidos-El Washington Examiner me record?, una vez que el presidente pidi? a los votantes a “desafiar a todos los funcionarios electos que se beneficia de la tesis de los anuncios para defender esta pr?ctica o unirse a nosotros (en) detenerlo.” ?nase a nosotros? Vamos a empezar con Obama, que va a tener desafiarse a s? mismo, como esta semana, pidi? a sus recaudadores de fondos de campa?a los mejores para mantener a su propio comit? de s?per acci?n pol?tica.

    Es cierto que los brutos como yo, viven bajo una noci?n absurdamente anticuado. Creemos que los ciudadanos deben tener libertad para apoyar a cualquier candidato con el dinero todo lo que quisiera, de forma an?nima, si as? lo desean. Pero si PAC supermercados y las empresas patrocinadas por la polic?a cking realmente poner en peligro la estructura misma de la vida estadounidense una vez que Obama dijo que eran una “amenaza a la democracia”, ?por qu? el presidente de participar en esta org?a de ego?smo espantosa?

    Eso se inform? de que Obama ten?a una de sus conversaciones internas “evoluci?n” en el tema, las conversaciones que siempre parecen evolucionar hacia Obama racionalizar lo que es mejor para Obama. Conversaciones que son educativas. Debido a que la pr?xima vez que la administraci?n cobra m?s que el habla es una amenaza la democracia, el discurso corporativo, los PAC super, Ciudadanos Unidos es realmente lo que significa es m?s que el habla es una amenaza a su segundo mandato.

  48. On Super Bowl Jumapili, Marekani ilikuwa kutibiwa kwa ad ghali zaidi wa kisiasa katika historia-Kuletwa kwenu na Chrysler kuitwa “Ni Nusu Time nchini Marekani.”

    Katika mfululizo wa sequiturs vapid zisizo, Clint Eastwood wa gravelly sauti akalazwa ahadi ya mji-no, taifa-kwa utegemezi wa serikali, kwa madai kwamba “watu wa Detroit” waliopotea karibu kila kitu lakini kwa sababu “sisi” vunjwa pamoja na Motor ” mji ni mapigano tena “-kufinywa, kunguruma, imbued na Marekani grit sisi alinusurika.

    Au, baadhi ya anaweza kusema, baada ya screwing wadau Inatupa mikataba ya kisheria, zawadi alishindwa biashara mifano (wakati kuwaadhibu Wale Kuajiri wale bora) na sticking walipakodi na vyama vya tab ‘mafuta ya pensheni, Marekani got kijiko heaping ya sera ya utawala wa Obama wa kiuchumi.

    Njia Aidha, ni isiyo ya kawaida Hiyo hatukusikia kiasi griping kuhusu “corporatism,” oligarchies na Wananchi United, ingawa ushirika kampeni iliyofadhiliwa na doa kuweka nje ya rais re ya uchaguzi hadithi badala nicely. Sasa, mimi sina beef na Chrysler wa mbio ad kampeni, lakini jambo ni kwamba kama Obama alikuwa na njia yake, Republican ingekuwa kesi nzuri kwa ajili ya kupiga marufuku mtoto au politicize hii cking. Unajua, kwa ajili ya mema ya demokrasia.

    Unaweza kukumbuka kwamba Mahakama Kuu ya Umoja wa Wananchi v Tume ya Uchaguzi ya Shirikisho uamuzi unaozingatia kuzunguka uwezo wa shirika na hewa documentary muhimu ya basi-mgombea Hillary Clinton. Katika kesi yake ya kwanza kama wakili wa jumla kwa ajili ya utawala wa Obama, kwa kweli, sasa Jaji wa Mahakama Kuu Elena Kagan alikwenda mbali kama kusema kuwa wanapaswa kupewa uwezo wa serikali ya shirikisho wa kupiga marufuku vitabu kama Washington wanaoonekana Hiyo Wao kiasi na “uchaguzi ukikaribia kisiasa.” Hebu tu kusema roho ya Voltaire si hasa katika kuongezeka Washington siku hizi.

    Unaweza Pia kumbuka kwamba wakati Ford mbio ad TV kumsifu na mkakati wake wa ubunifu au kushindana bila kulipia kodi, upendo (kidogo ya hadithi yenyewe), Ikulu ya Marekani aliripotiwa incensed, viewing ulinzi Ford ya biashara ya bure kama mashambulizi ya rais. Chini ya haja ya kusema, upset ting utawala hii ni mbaya kwa ajili ya biashara, na Ford vunjwa ad.

    Nini juu ya matangazo? Nini juu ya matangazo zinazozalishwa na makampuni ambayo wamefaidika (katika kesi hii, wa kuokoa uchumi Bush mkono na Obama) kutokana na sera za mkono na utawala huu?

    Nini juu ya “Ni Nusu Time katika Amerika”? Naam, cheers pande zote! White House mawasiliano mkurugenzi Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Kuokoa (Marekani) Jotoridi Viwanda: Kuna kitu Eminem na Clint Eastwood wanaweza kukubaliana juu.” (. Eminem inaonekana kusoma maandishi iliyoandikwa na watu Same aliyeandika script Hiyo Eastwood kusoma) ya kampeni ya Obama mbunifu, David Axelrod, tweeted: “doa Nguvu Je, Clint risasi Kwamba, au tu simulia hadithi yake.?”

    Hmm. Uhakika. David-kama wanaweza, labda Unaweza kuuliza chombo au Clint Hiyo umba kibiashara, Wieden + Kennedy, sababu inasemekana yenye folks waliofanya kazi katika Obama sababu ya Kidemokrasia na kampeni kwa miaka.

    Kwa wale mhimili PACs super-boogeyman kuu au Umoja wa Wananchi-Examiner Washington ilinikumbusha, rais mara moja aliuliza wapiga kura na “changamoto kila rasmi waliochaguliwa ambao faida kutoka Thesis matangazo ya kulinda njia hii au kujiunga na sisi (katika) kutokomeza ugonjwa huo.” Kujiunga nasi? Hebu kuanza na Obama, ambaye ni kwenda na changamoto na yeye mwenyewe, wiki hii, aliuliza fundraisers yake juu ya kampeni ya kusaidia super yake ya kisiasa action kamati.

    Hakika, Brutes kama mimi kuishi chini ya dhana preposterously antiquated. Tunaamini kwamba Wananchi Kuwa bure kuunga mkono mgombea yeyote kwa fedha nyingi kama Ningependa-anonymously, kama wanataka. Lakini kama super PACs na kampuni ya iliyofadhiliwa cking polisi ni kweli kuhatarisha kitambaa sana ya maisha ya Marekani mara moja Obama walidai kuwa walikuwa “tishio kwa demokrasia”-kwa nini rais kushiriki katika hii orgy ya ubinafsi gruesome?

    Iliripotiwa kwamba Obama alikuwa mmoja wa ndani yake “mazungumzo kutoa” juu ya suala hilo, mazungumzo Hiyo siku zote wanaonekana kufuka katika Obama na mantiki yoyote ni bora kwa Obama. Hayo ni mazungumzo ya elimu. Kwa sababu wakati mwingine utawala anadai zaidi Hiyo hotuba kutishia demokrasia, hotuba ya ushirika, super PACs, Wananchi Umoja kweli ni nini itakuwa na maana zaidi ni kwamba hotuba hii inatishia mrefu yake ya pili.

  49. P? Super Bowl s?ndag, var USA behandlas f?r att den dyraste politiska ad i historien, Presenteras av Chrysler som heter “Det ?r halvtid i Amerika.”

    I en serie fadd icke sequiturs, n?las Clint Eastwoods grusig r?st l?ftet om en stad, nej, en nation till regeringen beroende, h?vdade att “folket i Detroit” f?rlorat n?stan allt, men eftersom “vi” drog ihop och “Motor Staden k?mpar igen “-stansning, rytande, genomsyrade av amerikanska grus vi ?verlevde.

    Eller kanske vissa h?vdar, efter att skruva intressenter Discarding juridiska avtal, givande misslyckade aff?rsmodeller (medan straffa dem som anst?ller b?ttre s?dana) och h?lla skattebetalarna fackf?reningarna “fett pension fliken fick USA en r?gad sked av Obama-administrationens ekonomiska politik.

    Hursomhelst ?r det m?rkligt att vi inte h?rde mycket gn?ll om “korporatism” oligarkerna och medborgare United, ?ven om en f?retags-sponsrade kampanjen plats l?ggs ut presidentens omval ber?ttande ganska fint. Nu har jag ingen biff med Chrysler k?r en kampanj annons, men saken ?r att om Obama hade sitt s?tt skulle republikanerna ha en bra argument f?r att f?rbjuda barn eller politisera den h?r cking. Du vet, till gagn f?r demokratin.

    Ni kanske minns att H?gsta domstolen-medborgarna United mot Federal Election kommissionens beslut centrerad kring f?rm?ga ett f?retag att v?dra en dokument?r kritisk mot d?varande kandidat Hillary Clinton. I sin f?rsta fallet som advokat generellt f?r Obama-administrationen i sj?lva verket gick str?mmen justitier?det Elena Kagan s? l?ngt som att h?vda att b?r f? befogenhet den federala regeringen att f?rbjuda b?cker om Washington anser att de uppg?r till “politisk valkampanjen.” L?t oss bara s?ga anda Voltaire ?r inte precis stigande i Washington i dessa dagar.

    Du kan ocks? ih?g att n?r Ford k?rde en TV-annons prisar sin innovativa strategi eller konkurrerande utan Taxpayer v?lg?renheten (lite av en myt sj?lv), var Vita huset enligt uppgift rasande, visa Fords f?rsvar av fri f?retagsamhet som en attack p? presidenten. Mindre behov av att s?ga, uppr?rd ting denna administration ?r d?ligt f?r f?retagen, och Ford drog annonsen.

    Hur ?r det med reklam? Vad s?gs om reklam som produceras av f?retag som gynnats (i detta fall, en Bush r?ddningsaktion som st?ds av Obama) fr?n politik som st?ds av denna administration?

    Vad s?gs om “Det ?r halvtid i Amerika”? Tja, hurrarop runt! Vita huset informationsdirekt?r Dan Pfeiffer twittrade “Spara (American) Auto Bransch: N?got Eminem och Clint Eastwood kan enas om.” (. Eminem tydligen l?st ett manus som skrevs av samma personer som skrev manus som Eastwood l?sa) Obamas kampanj arkitekt, David Axelrod, twittrade: “Kraftfull spot Visste Clint skjuta den, eller bara ber?tta det.?”

    Hmm. Inte s?ker. David-om jag f?r, kanske du kan fr?ga den agentur eller Clint som skapade kommersiella, Wieden + Kennedy, eftersom det enligt uppgift bemannas av folk som har arbetat med Obama demokratiska orsaker och kampanjer i flera ?r.

    F?r dem PAC axeln super-huvud Boogeyman eller medborgare United-The Washington Examiner p?minde mig, fr?gade presidenten g?ng v?ljarna att “utmana varje f?rtroendevald som drar nytta av annonser avhandlingen att f?rsvara denna praxis eller ansluta sig till oss (i) att stoppa den.” F?lj med oss? L?t oss b?rja med Obama, som kommer att beh?va utmana sig sj?lv, som den h?r veckan, fr?gade sina b?sta kampanjen insamlingar f?r att st?dja sin egen super Political Action Committee.

    Visserligen odjur som jag lever under en orimlig f?r?ldrat begrepp. Vi tror att medborgarna skall vara fria att st?dja n?gon kandidat med s? mycket pengar som de vill-anonymt, om de ?nskar. Men om super PACS och f?retags-sponsrade polisen cking verkligen ?ventyrar sj?lva strukturen i amerikanskt liv en g?ng Obama h?vdade att de var ett “hot mot demokratin”-varf?r skulle presidenten delta i denna orgie av egoism Gruesome?

    Att det rapporterades Obama hade en av sina interna “Evolving samtal” p? fr?gan, konversationer som alltid tycks utvecklas till Obamas rationalisera det som ?r b?st f?r Obama. Samtal som ?r l?rorikt. Eftersom n?sta g?ng administrationen h?vdar mer att tal hotar demokratin, corporate tal, super PAC ?r medborgare United verkligen vad det kommer att inneb?ra ?r mer som tal hotar sin andra termin.

  50. Thank God for the scroll wheel.

    1. Actually, grabbing the scroll bar to the right and sliding it is far faster than scrolling through walls of copy.

    2. in english, Goldmember. I don’t speak fricky-dicky dutch.

  51. Super Bowl Pazar g?n?, Amerika’n?n en pahal? siyasi reklam Tedavi G?rm?? tarih-Getirdi?i Chrysler adland?r?lan taraf?ndan size “Bu Amerika’da Yar? var.”

    Yavan olmayan sequiturs bir dizi, Clint Eastwood’un ?ak?ll? ses “Detroit insanlar?” her ?eyi kaybetti?ini iddia eden bir ?ehir yok, bir ulus-devlet ba??ml?l?k s?z tutturulmu?, ancak “biz” bir araya ?ekti ve “Motor ??nk? Amerikan kum ile a??lanm?? ?ehir tekrar m?cadele ediyor “a?ma, k?kreyen, biz atlatt?.

    Veya, baz? payda?lar?n Discarding yasal s?zle?meler, ?d?llendirici ba?ar?s?z i? modelleri (iyi olanlar ?stihdam edenler cezaland?rm??t?r) vidalama ve sendikalar ‘?i?man emeklilik sekmesi ile m?kellefler yap??mas?n? sonra Argue olabilir, Amerika, Obama y?netiminin ekonomik politikas?n?n bir tepeleme ka??k var.

    Her iki ?ekilde de biz ?ok ilgili yak?nmalar duymad?m Bu garip “kurumsalla?ma,” oligar?ilerin ve Vatanda?lar Birle?ik olsa bir kurumsal sponsorlu?unda kampanya nokta ?ok g?zel, ba?kan?n yeniden se?ilmesi anlat? ortaya koydu. ?imdi, Chrysler ‘bir kampanya reklam? yay?nlamay? hi?bir s???r var, ama ?ey, Obama’n?n yolu olsayd?, Cumhuriyet?iler ?ocuk yasaklanmas? i?in iyi bir durum var ya da bu cking politize olacak budur. Sen demokrasi i?in iyi biliyorum.

    Bu Y?ksek Mahkeme’nin Vatanda?lar Birle?ik v Federal Se?im Komisyonu karar?n?n ard?ndan-aday Hillary Clinton’un kritik bir belgesel yay?nlamaya bir ?irketin yetene?i etraf?nda Yani hat?rlars?n?z. Washington Yani Onlar miktar? g?r?rse kitab? yasaklamak i?in federal h?k?metin yetkisi gerekti?ini savunuyorlar olarak Obama y?netimi i?in avukat genel olarak ilk durumda, asl?nda, mevcut Y?ksek Mahkeme Yarg?c? Elena Kagan kadar ileri gittiler “siyasi se?im kampanyas?.” Diyelim sadece Voltaire ruhu bu g?n tam olarak y?kselen Washington’da olmad???n? s?yl?yorlar.

    Bunlar? da cumhurba?kan?n?n bir sald?r? olarak serbest giri?im Ford’un savunma g?r?nt?lerken, Ford, bir TV reklam?, yenilik?i strateji ?ven veya Vergi M?kellefi hay?r (bir efsane Itself bir bit) olmadan rekabet ?al??t?rd???n?zda, Beyaz Saray bildirildi k??k?rtma Bu hat?rl?yorum olabilir. Az s?ylemek bu y?netimin i? i?in k?t?d?r, ve Ford reklam? ?ekti ting alt?st gerekir.

    Ne reklamlar? hakk?nda? Ne bu y?netim taraf?ndan desteklenen politikalardan (Bu durumda, Obama taraf?ndan desteklenen Bush kurtarma) yararlanm??t?r ?irketler taraf?ndan ?retilen reklamlar hakk?nda?

    Peki “Bu Amerika’da Yar? var”? Eh, her yerde alk??! Beyaz Saray ?leti?im Direkt?r? Dan Pfeiffer, “(Amerikan) Oto Sanayi Tasarruf: Something Eminem ve Clint Eastwood’un ?zerinde anla?abilirler.”, Tweeted (. Eminem g?r?n??te Eastwood okudu senaryosunu yazd??? ayn? ki?i taraf?ndan yaz?lm?? bir senaryoyu okumak) Obama’n?n kampanyas?n?n mimar? David Axelrod, tweeted: “G??l? nokta Clint bunu Narration Yani, ya da sadece ate? mi.?”

    Hmm. Emin de?il. David-e?er bildirildi y?ld?r Obama’n?n Demokrat nedenleri ve kampanyalar Y?r?t?len millet taraf?ndan personel ??nk? ben, belki sen, ticari, Wieden + Kennedy olu?turulan kurum veya Clint sorabilirsiniz olabilir.

    Bu PAC’ler ekseni s?per ana boogeyman veya Vatanda?lar Birle?ik-Washington Examiner bana neyi hat?rlatt? i?in, ba?kan bir kez “bu uygulama savunmak veya durdurma (olarak) bize kat?lmaya reklamlar? tez faydalanan her se?ilmi? resmi meydan.” Se?menlere sordu Bize kat?l?n? Kendisine meydan zorunda gidiyor Obama ile ba?layal?m, bu hafta, kendi s?per siyasi eylem komitesi desteklemek i?in kendi en iyi kampanya fundraisers sordu.

    Ku?kusuz, benim gibi zebanilere bir g?l?n? antika kavram? alt?nda ya??yoruz. Biz Vatanda?lar dilerlerse onlar gibi-anonim istiyorum kadar para ile herhangi bir aday? desteklemek i?in ?cretsiz olmas? gerekti?ine inan?yoruz. S?per PAC’ler ve kurumsal destekli polis cking ger?ekten Amerikan ya?am?n?n ?ok kuma? tehlikeye Ama e?er Obama Bunlar-neden cumhurba?kan? Gruesome bencillik bu alem kat?lmak edecek bir “demokrasi i?in bir tehdit” oldu?unu iddia bir kez?

    Bu Obama, bu konuda her zaman Obama’n?n Obama i?in en iyi olan neyse rasyonalize d?n??meye SEEM konu?malar? onun i? “Geli?en konu?malar?” biri vard? bildirildi s?yledi. E?itici konu?malar. ?darenin konu?ma, kurumsal konu?ma, s?per PAC’ler demokrasi tehdit ediyor, Vatanda?lar Birle?ik bunu ne anlama gelece?ini ger?ekten That daha iddia sonraki konu?mas?nda, ikinci d?nem tehdit ediyor Bu da daha fazla oldu?u i?in.

  52. Ar Super Bowl Sul, America oedd wedi’u trin i ad mwyaf drud yn hanes gwleidyddol-Cyflwynir gan Chrysler o’r enw “Mae’n Hanner Amser yn America.”

    Mewn cyfres o sequiturs nad ydynt yn vapid, Clint Eastwood yn graeanog llais binio addewid o ddinas-ddim, cenedl-i ddibyniaeth llywodraeth, gan honni bod “pobl Detroit” colli bron popeth ond oherwydd “ni” dynnu gyda’i gilydd ac yn y Modur ” Dinas yn ymladd eto “-dyrnu, rhuo, trwytho ? Americanaidd graean rydym goroesi.

    Neu, gallai rhai Dadlau, ar ?l sgriwio rhanddeiliaid contractau gael gwared cyfreithiol, modelau busnes gwerth chweil methu (tra cosbi rhai sy’n cyflogi rhai gwell) a gludo Trethdalwyr gyda’r undebau tab ‘pensiwn braster, America cael llond llwy chanu y weinyddiaeth Obama polisi economaidd.

    Naill ffordd neu’r llall, mae’n rhyfedd hynny doedden ni ddim clywed llawer griping am “corporatism,” oligarchies a Dinasyddion Unedig, er bod y fan a’r lle ymgyrch gorfforaethol a noddir gan osod allan y llywydd yn ail-ethol naratif yn hytrach ‘n glws. Nawr, nid oes gennyf cig eidion gyda Chrysler yn rhedeg ymgyrch ad, ond y peth yw hynny’n os Obama wedi ei ffordd, byddai Gweriniaethwyr gennych achos da dros wahardd plentyn neu cking hwn yn bwnc gwleidyddol. Rydych yn gwybod, er lles democratiaeth.

    Efallai y byddwch yn cofio Bod y Goruchaf Lys benderfyniad Unedig Dinasyddion Ffederal v Comisiwn Etholiad canolbwyntio ar y gallu o gorfforaeth i leisio rhaglen ddogfen feirniadol o yna-ymgeisydd Hillary Clinton. Yn ei achos yn gyntaf fel cyfreithiwr cyffredinol ar gyfer gweinyddu Obama, mewn gwirionedd, aeth ar hyn o bryd Goruchaf Lys Cyfiawnder Elena Kagan mor bell ? Dadlau Dylid grym y llywodraeth ffederal i wahardd llyfrau os Washington Maent yn credu bod hynny’n gyfystyr ? “etholiadol gwleidyddol.” Gadewch i ddweud nad yw ysbryd Voltaire yn union soaring yn Washington y dyddiau hyn.

    Efallai y byddwch yn Hefyd, cofiwch Bod Pan Ford yn rhedeg hysbyseb teledu ganmol ei strategaeth arloesol neu gystadlu heb (yn dipyn o fyth Hun) Drethdalwyr elusen, y T? Gwyn ei gythruddo reportedly, gwylio Ford amddiffyniad o fenter am ddim fel ymosodiad ar y llywydd. Llai angen i ddweud, cynhyrfu Gr?piau weinyddiaeth hon yn ddrwg i fusnes, a Ford tynnu’r hysbyseb.

    Beth am hysbysebion? Beth am hysbysebion a gynhyrchwyd gan Cwmn?au elwa hynny (yn yr achos hwn, mae help llaw Bush a gefnogir gan Obama) o bolis?au a gefnogir gan y weinyddiaeth hon?

    Beth am “Mae’n Hanner Amser yn America”? Wel, bonllefau o gwmpas! Drydar White House cyfathrebu cyfarwyddwr Dan Pfeiffer, “Arbed y (America) Diwydiant Auto: Gall Eminem Rhywbeth a Clint Eastwood yn cytuno arno.” Drydar (Eminem yn ?l pob golwg ddarllen sgript a ysgrifennwyd gan yr un bobl a ysgrifennodd y sgript Bod Eastwood darllen.) Pensaer ymgyrch Obama, David Axelrod,: “fan a’r lle pwerus Oeddech Clint saethu hynny, neu dim ond adrodd arno.?”

    Hmm. Ddim yn si?r. David-os caf, efallai Gallech ofyn i’r asiantaeth neu Clint Bod greodd y masnachol, Wieden + Kennedy, Gan ei fod yn cael ei staffio gan reportedly Folks sydd wedi Wedi gweithio ar achosion Obama Democrataidd ac yn ymgyrchu dros y blynyddoedd.

    Ar gyfer y rhai Atgoffa echel PACS super-y brif boogeyman neu Unedig Dinasyddion-yr Arholwr Washington mi, y llywydd ar ?l gofyn i bleidleiswyr “herio bob swyddogol etholedig sy’n cael budd o’r hysbysebion traethawd ymchwil i amddiffyn yr arfer hwn neu ymuno ? ni (yn) atal.” Ymunwch ? ni? Gadewch i ni ddechrau gyda Obama, pwy sy’n mynd i gael i herio ei hun, fel yr wythnos hon, gofynnodd ei ymgyrch codi arian i gefnogi ben ei hun pwyllgor gweithredu gwleidyddol super.

    Rhaid cyfaddef, teulu Brute fel fi yn byw o dan syniad preposterously hen ffasiwn. Credwn y dylai Dinasyddion Bod yn rhad ac am ddim i gefnogi unrhyw ymgeisydd ag arian gymaint ag y byddent yn hoffi-yn ddi-enw, os ydynt yn dymuno. Ond os PACS super a cking heddlu corfforaethol a noddir yn wir yn peryglu wead bywyd Americanaidd unwaith Obama yn honni eu bod yn “fygythiad i democratiaeth”-pam y byddai’r llywydd Cymryd rhan yn y orgy o hunanoldeb erchyll?

    Hynny dywedwyd Obama oedd un o’i mewnol “sgyrsiau Esblygu” ar y mater, sgyrsiau hynny bob amser yn ymddangos i esblygu i mewn i Obama rhesymoli beth bynnag sydd orau i Obama. Sgyrsiau Bod yn addysgol. Oherwydd bod y tro nesaf y gweinyddu hawliadau mwy Bod lleferydd yn bygwth democratiaeth, lleferydd corfforaethol, PACS super, Dinasyddion Unedig ” n sylweddol beth fydd yn ei olygu yw hynny’n fwy lleferydd yn bygwth ei ail dymor.

    1. Are you looking for a bi-lover? See whats-her-name, above.
      Or are you just pleased to post hogwash?


  53. OK, looking it over, we have a jackass who simply copied the article, plugged it into a ‘translation ap’, and pasted the results in various languages.
    I’ll bet you thought that was ‘clever’, right, trap? (Albanian for asshole)

  54. I’ve changed my mind: I want Guatanamo to stay open, after all. If we close it, Senator Vreenak wins.

  55. Harsanyi is upset because the money that went to save American jobs in the auto industry could have gone to build settlements in the West Bank.

  56. This makes a whole lot of sense dude.

  57. Feck off, Clint, you sniveling bastid. Drink! Arse! Girls!

  58. And FECK the Senator up his arse twice. Drink!

  59. Hey Dumb Asses, the auto bailout came from the Bush admin. in late 2008/early Jan 2009, did everyone forget that? Besides, I saw nothing in this commercial other than Obama’s neck. Who cares what Clint Eastwood says anyway. Great in a Western, but don’t know shit about struggling for a job or Detroit! …and neither do half of you boneheads on this forum. This is all just another one of those silly ass debates between busy bodies who subscribe to that whole “Democrat-vs-Republican” thing. As for me, I’ll remain Independent and buy a fucking FORD!

  60. Are you guys fucking idiots? Eastwood is a libertarian and usually votes Republican. It’s a commercial you fucking twits, it’s designed to make you feel good about buying a Chrysler vehicle. The Obama administration latched onto this because it made people feel good about being an American, as well as buying a Chrysler. The Republicans, and you idiots, are trying to twist “feeling good about being American and buying a Chrysler” into “propaganda for Obama.”

    It’s a commercial, nothing more, nothing less. This is worse than Bill O’Reilly trying to say that Revenge of the Sith was anti-Bush.

    1. Revenge of the Sith was Anti-Bush. Didn’t you know that Cheney is Palpatine? (Joke)

  61. I am disappointed with Clint not so much because the commercial tangentially supports Bush/Obama but because it supports stupidity. The oversimplified allegory to halftime and the homage to collectivism and central planning are not very libertarian.

  62. It’s a car commercial idiots. Get over yourselves. Believe it or not some things are just what they seem. You’re getting excited because some people in the Obama administration made jokes about a car commercial. Wow…. Oh and Clint was paid to do it, he didn’t do it for political reasons.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.