Debunking the attacks on Chrysler’s Clint Eastwood Super Bowl ad

Karl Rove criticized Chrysler’s Super Bowl ad, “Half-Time in America,” as evidence that President Obama was “using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.” But as Daniel Gross points out, Chrysler is no longer receiving taxpayer funds:

Ultimately, however, the bailouts and the bankruptcy process put Chrysler and GM into positions where they could be functional companies. The loans provided by the Bush and Obama administrations were converted into shares, and in 2010 and 2011 the new Chrysler paid back the funds in bits and pieces. Last July, the ‘investment’ that had been initiated by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration was closed out. The government received about $10.3 billion back from the company — or more than 80 percent of its investment. The transactions were closed out with a loss to taxpayers of about $1.9 billion.

So, Chrysler is an independent company, with no government ownership... In 2011, the company’s sales rose by 26 percent. In January, Chrysler reported sales were up 44 percent from January 2011, the best monthly performance since January 2008...at a time when the economy is growing, when employment is rising, and when car sales and Chrysler’s own business have bounced back from their lows, a privately held firm running an advertisement that talks about recovery and growth is somehow a political act that is subsidized by taxpayers?