The actress in the now infamous Peter Hoekstra ad is identified
Pawn or participant, we all have to work.
Too much now we look for smallest things or most inconsequential people to blame. The big picture here in this instance certainly isn’t Lisa but instead ol’ Petey and whoever wrote the ad for him.
Fwiw, the author is the same ad agency that came out with the “Demon Sheep” ad for Carly Fiorna in California. This sort of “playful” approach coupled with distance from MI would seem to account for much of the train wreck. That this same ad also handed the Durant folks a sharp blade points to a certain obliviousness on the part of Hoekstra — his record is not that of fiscal penny pinching, or even of doubt about China. Led astray by those Californians, I tell ya’.
Jason Ellis writes:
Ostensibly about Santorum, but a lot of good stuff, data etc. about the white working class voters…
Despite partisan stances — I think differently than Olsen on some of the specifics — Jason is right, this is a very good article. The element not really dealt with in the article is the generational difference between older and younger working class. Recent studies suggest that the church is losing its connection especially with this latter group.
This looking back to the Reagan Democrat (three, not two decades away) also lies at the heart of the now notorious Hoekstra senate ad and its asian-bashing.
On the Murray book, David Frum (these days a moderate conservative) gives a very sharp review at Daily Beast.
Peter Hoekstra came out with a doozy of an ad at Super Bowl, one that has unfortunately for him gone viral.
Meanwhile at MLive Commentator Bottomtime1 can’t see the problem
Forget the ad, the Bottom line is Stabenow has to go, just like Obama has to go. Liberalism, Socialism aren’t working. It’s time for someone new, a Conservative to come in and clean up the Mess made by Liberals all over this Country.
An ad like this betrays a fundamental lack of smarts: if it’s satire, it’s mighty weak stuff. If it is about the Chinese (or East Asian) trade imbalance, it’s off target. We don’t have the trade imbalance because we spend too much on rice. bluntly, had she been on an assembly line, or inside a factory it would have had more edge. As has been pointed out by others, the reason for the trade deficit in part lies from our preference to pay for the war with debt. The fiscal policies that then-Representative Hoekstra passed are the ones that helped drive the very imbalance he apparently decries.
(And there is the odd, Viet Nam vibe to the whole this something of a dog whistle to the old guard right.)