This commercial was real to me.
We love our animals. We love our land.
And yet, there are those who dare say the opposite of us.
Who have never walked in our boots.

Badger40 on February 4, 2013 at 9:11 AM

And you, kind, hardworking Sir, are wonderful. Thank you!

If that ad made even one coastal/urban leftie rethink their own views of all of us in flyover country it was well worth it. ‘Geez, maybe I’m a bit off in thinking they’re all hicks, rubes, bitter clingers, etc.’

For me, this ad and Bud’s were like a breath of fresh air, particularly when juxtaposed against all the bad and ugly, the crass and tasteless. .

…

no there is not a farmer in every one of us.

And we cheapen that message when we imply that the noble and courageous is just the common.

We all may wish to be that way, but too few of us are willing to pay the price that true character and nobility of spirit demand.

PackerBronco on February 4, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Well said.

Not all of us have a farmer inside. In fact, judging from the last election too many of us don’t.

And even if we did, we’d most likely get in trouble with the city or a Homeowners’ Taliban if we tried to start raising crops in our yard.

The only thing that’s sure is that we nearly saw the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, but it fell five yards one correctly called pass interference penalty short.

I fixed it for you. :)

fight like a girl on February 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I agree that the Clydesdale ad was the best commercial for a product, but damn was that Paul Harvey tribute to the Farmer moving, especially with all the other crap tossed at us during the commercials and the halftime show.

Basically its “untruthfulness” is merely via its association with Dodge. As I said, it was a good advertisement for small family farmers.

ksbsnowowl on February 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM

.
I can understand small family farmers not being able to afford a new pick-up truck, from any manufacturer.
But I failed to see the “pro-government subsidy” angle you’re talking about, in the commercial.

I don’t believe there’s much disagreement between us, only a mis-perception of a piece of the commercial on my part.

Am I the only one here who did not watch the Superbowl?
Naturally Curly on February 4, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Didn’t watch. Especially avoided Beyonce. Because:

Why would FLOTUS be proud of a halftime show?
changer1701 on February 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Because it is the first time in the history of our slave nation that someone who gave the GOP candidate the finger, with a ‘Take that, *itches’ got to do an encore on prime time. Isn’t that what highlighting her at the inaugural was about, too?

It was Jeep, narrated by Oprah, and almost as big a propaganda piece as Bloombergs “We’re going to take your guns” propaganda. On the surface it was okay but the underlying idea is that the nation is no longer engaged in combat- all peace and prosperity- and that simply isn’t the case. It is the rat-eared wonder’s supporters trying to rewrite the narrative even as we still have Americans being killed in Afghanistan.
Happy Nomad on February 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Agree. I assume this is a second reason FLOTUS was hot flashing

I miss Harvey, so loved to hear him again. I love Clydesdales, but was that pretty boy really its trainer? He looked like he belonged in the Ice Capades. I enjoyed the VW commercial. “respect Boss-man” cracked me up

all covered in a thin glaze of syrupy patriotic fervor.

no thanks.

sesquipedalian on February 4, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Now I know who you are-you’re that whiny Leftist hag who “wrote” the bitter article last week about how American sporting events are “too patriotic”. Limbaugh had a field day with that steaming heap during today’s show.

So are you going to also whine about the “religious” Paul Harvey Ram Trucks ad? A ton of your fellow Leftist Bitter Atheist Clingers are doing that at the youtube upload, which has already gone viral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpZ0TGjbWE

Discuss.

“saluting the farmer in all of us ”

All of us?

Way to miss your own point.

Not all of us have a farmer inside. In fact, judging from the last election too many of us don’t.

Not the woman demanding her free Obamaphone.

Not the person demanding that I pay for her birth control.

Not the guy going on social security disability because it sure beats working.

Not the guy asking me to pay for his second mortgage.

Not any of the voters thinking that the goal of government is to get the OTHER GUY to pay your way.

no there is not a farmer in every one of us.

And we cheapen that message when we imply that the noble and courageous is just the common.

We all may wish to be that way, but too few of us are willing to pay the price that true character and nobility of spirit demand.

I’m not proud of my “ignorance”, but I am honest about it . . . . . .
.
In what way, HOW … was the Paul Harvey ad “not truthful”?

listens2glenn on February 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM

One, small family farmers like the ones depicted, would have a damn hard time affording a $30,000+ vehicle. None of my FIL’s equipment was new when he bought it. Best car he ever had was a used Honda pilot with 80k miles on it.

Two, the idea of bail-outs from the .gov runs counter to the way of thinking of most small farmers (though admittedly the government has done a good job of slowly getting a lot of them onto the subsidy teat).

Basically its “untruthfulness” is merely via its association with Dodge. As I said, it was a good advertisement for small family farmers.

I am not dissing Paul Harvey or how it was presented. Yes, it was nostalgic and good but it did not link to the ad buyer, Chrysler.

Then how do you know it was a Chrysler ad? No one here seems to be confused about it and I don’t know anyone who is confused on that account.

Many people today are saying they liked the Paul Harvey ad but they don’t know who the ad was for.

“Many people”? Who?

Therefor, it was a nice piece but not a good ad.
fight like a girl on February 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I think where you’re confused is in the nature of targeted advertising – especially during a Super Bowl. They could have run the same Ram truck commercial they run during their usual year round ad buys. But the accounting dept might frown on paying out 8 million bucks just to provide Super Bowl viewers with a bathroom break.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Super Bowl ads aren’t about selling soap. They’re selling images and beliefs via targeted advertising. If the Ram truck ad had been to get tween girls’ attention it would have featured Justin Beiber doing a duet with the pop-diva du jour. However, that wasn’t what Dodge was shooting for – they surely know their consumer demographics. And, for that demographic, it worked perfectly. Read PrincipleStand’s report in a comment above and you’ll see what I mean.

whatcat on February 4, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I am not dissing Paul Harvey or how it was presented. Yes, it was nostalgic and good but it did not link to the ad buyer, Chrysler. Many people today are saying they liked the Paul Harvey ad but they don’t know who the ad was for. Therefor, it was a nice piece but not a good ad. And you are wrong about the Budweiser commercial. Their Clydesdale ads are some of the most remembered Super Bowl commercials. When you see a Clydesdale, you think of Budweiser. When you hear Paul Harvey talking about farmers, you don’t think Ram trucks.

The Dodge added tag line at the end “To the farmer in all of us” definitely not so much. In fact, all I could see in my mind was Barack Obama shooting a shotgun.

As Cathy would say, “Bleaaaaaaaaaaah.”