As I suspected, the Clint Eastwood “Halftime in America” commercial for Chrysler that aired during last night’s Super Bowl turned out to be quite controversial.
This AP article discusses some of the reaction to the ad from various points on the political spectrum and quotes Eastwood as saying the ad was not intended to be political, but rather just about job growth and the spirit of America.
Interestingly, some people apparently construed the ad to be a pro-President Obama endorsement of the federal government bailout of Chrysler and GM. I guess I’m just dense, but I didn’t get that message if it was intended. In fact, if I were the President I don’t think I would want that ad, with its emphasis on tough times and America needing to come from behind, to be associated with me. If President Obama wants to highlight what he considers to be positive accomplishments during his term, you’d think he would be able to come up with a better subject than poor, broke, decimated Detroit.
Huh? America as a whole is supposed to follow Detroit’s lead? For the record, Detroit is on its knees. The 
The rapid decline of Detroit’s population will come as no surprise to anyone who has been to the city in the past few decades. Even in the early 1980s, when Kish, Snow and I visited, Detroit had the scent of death about it. The city was tied inexorably to the American auto industry, and as the Big Three fell victim to their own hubris and inability to produce quality vehicles at reasonable prices Detroit suffered. Successive urban renewal-type projects, from the Renaissance Center to casino gambling, became increasingly desperate and made the city’s image fall still farther. A few years ago I went to a deposition at a law firm’s building in a formerly grand neighborhood on the outskirts of downtown, and found block after largely vacant block of rubble and an occasional gutted building. Parts of inner city of Detroit seem to be turning into a vast urban wasteland.
Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure I’m going to vote against Issue 3. The proponents of the Issue say it will create 34,000 jobs connected with construction and then operation of the casinos and keep $1 billion in Ohio that Ohio citizens would otherwise gamble away in Indiana or West Virginia or Detroit. I don’t know whether those statistics are reasonable or valid, and I don’t care. I just think casinos are bad for communities, and I don’t want one in Columbus. I’ve been to Detroit, where casino gambling was supposed to revitalize downtown, and I don’t think it has worked. In fact, I think the contrary is true. The “Greektown” section of Detroit is pretty grim — a few casinos in an otherwise blighted area that doesn’t seem safe to walk around. Why would we want that in Columbus?
In Ohio we have had statewide initiatives on casino gambling repeatedly in recent years. Last year a bruising campaign produced a strong rejection of casino gambling at the ballot box, and yet it is back on the ballot, again, this year. It seems unfair to allow moneyed interests to put the same issue on the ballot over and over again, until their less well-heeled opponents have exhausted their resources and the proposition finally is approved after repeated defeats. In my mind, that is just another reason to vote against Issue 3.
