Ford Ad Pulled - Seems Fishy To Me, Too

[ABM]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/howes-ford-yanks-bailout-ad-after-white-house-pressure/

Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes reports in a column that Ford has pulled its controversial “bailout ad” after the White House asked “questions” about it. And apparently the take-down decision makes this a threatened piece of footage: in addition to yanking the spot from the airwaves, the version of the video we posted two weeks ago has been taken down from YOutube as well [a home recording of it can still be found here]. So what happened that Ford would throw its most popular ad in ages down the memory hole? Howes is cryptic…

Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early ’09 and again when the ad flap arose…

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can’t have that.

The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.

In other words, where presidential politics and automotive marketing collide — clean, green, politically correct vehicles not included — the president wins and the automaker loses because the benefit of the battle isn’t worth the cost of waging it.

Who were these “individuals inside the White House?” What questions did they have for Ford? And why on earth would Ford not stand up for itself in this situation? That GM was “carping” about the ad only makes this worse: the White House wasn’t just trying to smooth over the campaign trail, it was protecting its investment (remember, the government still owns a significant stake in The General) by “asking” a competitor to kill a successful ad. So, just how aggressively did the White House “ask” about this ad? Again, Howes is cryptic:

“This thing is highly charged,” says an industry source familiar with the situation. Ford “never meant it to be an attack on the policy. There was not any pressure to take down the ad.”

Maybe not technically. But the nexus of politics and the auto business in today’s Washington is bigger, broader and more complex than it arguably has been in who knows how long.

Gosh, if I had a reporter in the White House press corps, I’d be sure to have them ask about this. After all, this situation highlights perfectly why bailouts are so un-American. I don’t care who you are or how you felt about the bailout in the first place: at the point that the President is pressuring competitors to government-owned companies to yank truth-telling ads, you’ve got to wonder what happened to this country.

 

[julius]

I love how people always assume that the white house (regardless of who is in it) actually would do something like this. The backlash they would receive if it was REAL would be far worse then the backlash they'd receive if the advertisement was kept on the air.

especially when you consider that the Ford CEO was in favor of the bailouts...and still is.

Btw, Ford may not have taken a "bailout" in the same manner that GM and Chrysler did, but they didn't turn down the millions they received in low interest loans and tax breaks.

I thinks more likely that the ad had run it's course (car ads don't last long...in fact, I saw a really really REALLY lame GM ad two weeks ago and haven't seen it since). I also don't put a whole lot of weight behind someone who is a regular on a radio talk show, where the host fills in for Rush Limbaugh.

Think about it this way. Why would the White House not WANT to talk about the bailouts? So far, haven't GM and Chrysler has paid most of it back, and isn't GM back on it's feet now? Seems like the White House would want that information out.

 

[jlprk]

This thread should have been started tomorrow morning. You know, to get maximum tread from the ROAD (Republicans' Outrage of the Day).

 

[ABM]

This thread should have been started tomorrow morning. You know, to get maximum tread from the ROAD (Republicans' Outrage of the Day).

I'm not outraged. I'm just beginning to get the feeling that the Obama Administration, dare I say, meddles? (Solyndra, Gibson, et al)

 

[julius]

I'm not outraged. I'm just beginning to get the feeling that the Obama Administration, dare I say, meddles? (Solyndra, Gibson, et al)

wasn't the Solyndra deal first started by the Bush administration?

btw, the evidence that the Obama administration "meddled" with the Ford ad isn't exactly on solid ground.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

The Solyndra deal, which was a pretty lame one, typifies one of the bigger issues with partisanship. Not that it was "Bush's fault", but that it's crying over half a billion dollars when so much more was wasted by Bush and Obama.

500 million is not even 1/24th of what it cost a month to fund the Iraq war in 2008.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think the ad was pulled also in part to the UAW. They received a huge bailout when none was needed and also got GM as a boobie prize. The UAW calls Obama, Obama has someone call Ford and the ad disappears. Let's face it, Mr. President needs all the good press and lack of negative press he can get these days.

 

[barfo]

I think the ad was pulled also in part to the UAW. They received a huge bailout when none was needed and also got GM as a boobie prize. The UAW calls Obama, Obama has someone call Ford and the ad disappears. Let's face it, Mr. President needs all the good press and lack of negative press he can get these days.

I think the trilateral commission and the Rockefellers were involved also. I suspect that Ford was paid off with some of the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was stolen from underneath WTC7.

Also, I think it is usually a booby prize, rather than a boobie prize. Booby prize comes from the 'dolt' meaning of boob, rather than 'tit'. Apparently booby trap has the same meaning - a booby trap traps boobs (not boobies). Just in case you were wondering

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

wasn't the Solyndra deal first started by the Bush administration?

btw, the evidence that the Obama administration "meddled" with the Ford ad isn't exactly on solid ground.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

The Solyndra deal, which was a pretty lame one, typifies one of the bigger issues with partisanship. Not that it was "Bush's fault", but that it's crying over half a billion dollars when so much more was wasted by Bush and Obama.

500 million is not even 1/24th of what it cost a month to fund the Iraq war in 2008.

Bush did it. Change we can believe in. Disconnect.

 

[jlprk]

This thread should have been started tomorrow morning. You know, to get maximum tread from the ROAD (Republicans' Outrage of the Day).

I wonder why Denny starts his new threads early each morning. Hmmm.

 

[julius]

Bush did it. Change we can believe in. Disconnect.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not "bush did it1!!11!!"

 

[Denny Crane]

Pointing out hypocrisy is not "bush did it1!!11!!"

Bringing up Bush is a strawman.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think the trilateral commission and the Rockefellers were involved also. I suspect that Ford was paid off with some of the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was stolen from underneath WTC7.

Also, I think it is usually a booby prize, rather than a boobie prize. Booby prize comes from the 'dolt' meaning of boob, rather than 'tit'. Apparently booby trap has the same meaning - a booby trap traps boobs (not boobies). Just in case you were wondering

barfo

Classic barfo. I love it.

 

[julius]

Bringing up Bush is a strawman.

Maybe. But this whole thread is based on a strawman.

 

[BrianFromWA]

wasn't the Solyndra deal first started by the Bush administration?

btw, the evidence that the Obama administration "meddled" with the Ford ad isn't exactly on solid ground.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

The Solyndra deal, which was a pretty lame one, typifies one of the bigger issues with partisanship. Not that it was "Bush's fault", but that it's crying over half a billion dollars when so much more was wasted by Bush and Obama.

500 million is not even 1/24th of what it cost a month to fund the Iraq war in 2008.

I don't quite understand. What does the $187B in Overseas Contingency that Democratically-controlled Congress funded in 2008 have to do with partisan leverage by the President today?

I mean, I could say that "500 million is not even 1/120th of what it costs a month to fund the Medicare check-bouncing in 2011", but that doesn't deal with potential illegal dealings by someone in the administration over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

 

[Spud147]

I think the trilateral commission and the Rockefellers were involved also. I suspect that Ford was paid off with some of the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was stolen from underneath WTC7.

Also, I think it is usually a booby prize, rather than a boobie prize. Booby prize comes from the 'dolt' meaning of boob, rather than 'tit'. Apparently booby trap has the same meaning - a booby trap traps boobs (not boobies). Just in case you were wondering

barfo

You forgot The Illuminati... oh wait, that's still blaming it on George W. isn't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

You forgot The Illuminati... oh wait, that's still blaming it on George W. isn't it?

Forgot Halliburton, too.

 

[Spud147]

Forgot Halliburton, too.

When playing the blame game I do indeed like to alternate between George W. and Dick Cheney. But since everybody else was already blaming George W. and I wanted to fit in with the group, I jumped on that bandwagon.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i blame the bush family for jfk and rfks assassinations, the vietnam war, and iran/contra as well as the savings and loan scandal, 9/11, the wall street bailouts and the iraq war, amongst other things like attempted coups and nazi backing

good god it would be funny if it wasnt horrifying