Just how wrong did the media get Clint Eastwood?

posted at 5:01 pm on September 3, 2012 by Karl

Admittedly, I am late to evaluating Clint Eastwood’s RNC performance. However, the fact that the pundit class is still critiquing it days later is one indicator of how shrewd it was as political theater. Accordingly, it is worth noting just how wrong some of the Eastwood analysis has been, even from those defending the speech.

The harsh, conventional wisdom about Eastwood’s decidedly unconventional approach to the convention is that it was the ramblings of a senile old man. Even may of Eastwood’s defenders have described it as rambling. This likely makes Eastwood’s day.

After all, who is Clint Eastwood? He is one of the top actors, directors and producers of motion pictures in the world. Most of the world — and almost certainly everyone tuning in to the RNC Thursday night — knows this. Yet most of the analyses of his RNC appearance are based on the notion that we were not witnessing acting. That mass suspension of disbelief may be the highest tribute Eastwood will ever be paid as an actor. If you think the Eastwood on stage was the only Eastwood there is, watch him promoting J. Edgar on The Daily Show last November. I have little doubt he will be equally sharp promoting Trouble With the Curve in the next few weeks.

Moreover, as a director, Eastwood has a reputation of knowing exactly what he wants. Also, he does not prefer to do many takes: “The big question, for me, is how to do it *** so the actors can perform at their very best and with the spontaneity that you’d like to find so that the audience will feel like those lines have been said for the very first time, ever. Then you’ve got a believable scene.” That approach is entirely consistent with Eastwood’s talent as a jazz pianist, someone who enjoys improvising within a framework. The fact that Eastwood’s performance was not loaded into a teleprompter does not mean it was unplanned.

If you doubt that Eastwood was not simply winging it, don’t watch his performance — read the transcript. There may be no better indicator of just how intentional Eastwood’s performance is than to compare the visual impression he gave with the text delivered.

Eastwood begins with a touch of Admiral James Stockdale, but Clint answers the question of why he is there. The fact is that everyone really knows why Clint is there — to make a political statement. But Eastwood, in mentioning that Hollywood is perhaps not as monolithic as the stereotype suggests, is making a subtle suggestion to the audience he wants to reach: you may be part of some left-identifying group, but it’s okay to disagree and there may be other quiet dissenters in your group.

Eastwood then introduces the dramatic device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit. This has been remarked upon, particularly as an echo of comedic dialogs from people like Bob Newhart, so I won’t dwell on it here, although it reappears below.

Eastwood then proceeds to use this comedic device to deliver — as Mark Steyn noted in passing — some of the toughest political attacks on President Obama heard during the entire RNC. A number of the traditional speakers strove to play on swing voters’ disenchantment with the failed promises of Hope and Change. But notice how tired and traditional that just sounded in your head. Mitt Romney (likely with help from a professional political speechwriter) did it pretty well: “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.” But did anyone do it as powerfully and emotionally as Eastwood’s segue from everyone — himself included — crying with joy at Obama’s historic victory to the tears we now shed over 23 million still unemployed, which Clint bluntly called a national disgrace?

This was the first part of Eastwood’s simple and effective argument. Eastwood points out — in a prodding, joking manner — that Obama was elected to bring peace and prosperity, but failed to bring either. That Eastwood may disagree with the GOP on some war issues is perfectly alright in this context, because, as suggested earlier and explored further below, Eastwood is not really targeting Republicans.

Eastwood then arrives at his Joe Biden joke: “Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.” That last part is not accidental in a performance featuring an empty chair. But the first part is even more dangerous. For the last 3+ years, we have been accustomed to having Biden as safe material for humor, while Obama has been kept off-limits. Eastwood leverages the latter into the former, suggesting that Sheriff Joe is the real brains of the operation. Ouch! No wonder Team Obama got annoyed enough to respond.

Having delivered these punches regarding our dire situation with velvet gloves, Eastwood then does the softest of sells for the Romney/Ryan ticket. As Jesse Walker noted, it was almost more of a pitch for Not Obama. Again, there was nothing accidental about the nature or placement of this speech withing Clint’s imagined dialogue.

Eastwood concludes by summing up the GOP case to undecideds and rebutting the main point Dems seem to advance for Obama. First, “[p]oliticians are employees of ours… And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let ‘em go.” Second, “we don’t have to be metal [sic] masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys if you look at some of the recent ads going out there.”

Eastwood was not “rambling.” He improvised within a structure, making a clear and concise case for dumping Obama.

Eastwood’s approach to this performance was not accidental. Eastwood is — by reason of his resume — the foremost expert in the world on Clint Eastwood fans. Harry Callahan may have understood that a man has to know his limitations. Eastwood knows his… and he also knows his strengths. A man does not produce and star in dozens of Clint Eastwood movies without having thought deeply about and received the benefit of copious market research into what appeals to people about Clint Eastwood.

From the standpoint of political science, it would be fair to hypothesize that appeals to both disaffected and libertarian voters (which is something of a feat) in a way that Mitt Romney could never hope to do. More colloquially, it would be fair to suggest that Eastwood appeals to the sort of people who gravitated to H. Ross Perot in the Nineties. He appeals to people who distrust institutions, who think that conventional politics fails the American people. The sort of people for whom Harry Callahan, Will Munny, Frank Horrigan, Luther Whitney and Walt Kowalski have an emotional resonance.

So why would Eastwood deliver a conventional political speech? Had he delivered his material as a series of slick-sounding zingers, it would have been the sort of speech the media expected from Chris Christie’s keynote address. But that would have been: (a) not in keeping with the Romney campaign’s softer approach; and (b) diminishing and disappointing to Eastwood’s target audience. Most of the chattering class failed to grasp this. Some on Team Romney failed to grasp this. But the evidence coming in, both anecdotally and from polling, suggests Eastwood still has his finger on the popular pulse in a way pols and pundits never will.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yes, a few of you bitter clingers are talking about the empty chair. The rest of the world is not. Just because you like something, doesn’t make it effective.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Actually, I work with an office full of progressives. Many of them are younger; they regularly watch Stewart and Colbert. Eastwood was ALL they were talking about Friday morning, and they thought it was hilarious. They’re not changing their vote, but they got it.

Seems it was over your head.

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Two minutes. Not bad.

Night Owl on September 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

After reading the transcript, Clint knew EXACTLY what he was doing… it was BRUTAL…

Khun Joe on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Exactly. I think your average Republican trying to reflect on an event the media is trying to characterize, has a hard time actually going for the jugular when the situation warrants it.

I’ve said it before. Hit em hard Mitt and Paul.

Hit em where it hurts and hit them there often. Use surrogates, who cares, just hit em.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Big surprise coming from a dumba*s like yourself.

You forget what you write. I don’t. Shall I paste some?

I do hope you have enough of a life that you have something better to do than searching my old posts to find my occasional intemperate characterisations of my interlocutors here. I will stipulate that I have called a few names — if you will stipulate that I have been called many more. At any rate, sticks and stones, etc.

In other words you were busted, then you whine that you have been called more names, then you say sticks and stones. You’re a hoot.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Obama was just lucky he wasn’t literally siting in that chair.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I would change the name if I could.
urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Have at it.

I take it you’re not too smart with puters.

As the regulars here. I used to be CWforFreedom. I used that temporarily at the time your boy Obama crammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Ask*

CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

“Daddy Warbucks” was not a Romney shot, just the opposite of Homer Simpson.

But, now that you mention it….

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM

In your mind, did that somehow seem to say to you that it would now make “more” sense to me? Romney isn’t steeped in miltary bucks. What the he11 does Daddy Warbucks even mean in reference to Romney?

Dude, you’re a rambling talking point and most of the time come off sounding like a traffic cop.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

The beauty of Clint’s performance is that his let’s fire Obama, non-endorsement of Romney/Ryan (saying they can come along) is that he spoke to the independents. His message was vague enough that people are reading into it what they want to hear and what they would say to Obama (and all elites) if they could.

The libertarians hear an anti-war theme;
An older generation hears a yearning for a stronger America;
The everyman hears someone who really cares about unemployment;
Independents hear about how crass and corruptible politicians are.

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Big surprise coming from a dumba*s like yourself.
CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Heh!

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

your snotty little attitude about urban life, by the way, is one reason why African Americans and Hispanics will never vote Republican.

Have a nice life in your soulless suburb.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM

The irony.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I do hope you have enough of a life that you have something better to do than searching my old posts to find my occasional intemperate characterisations of my interlocutors here. I will stipulate that I have called a few names — if you will stipulate that I have been called many more. At any rate, sticks and stones, etc.

I have a great life and it takes no great effort. Maybe you don’t get what an impression hypocrisy makes.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Heh!

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

You sure like those short three letter words. I suspect your education was lacking. Thanks for playing …later.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Most of us have already said we thought it was genius. That the liberal trolls can only key on the optics and not the content is telling, no?

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I scratched my head when Eastwood did this.

But liberals have been squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance ever since, so I’m inclined to believe Eastwood did something that hit a vary raw and vulnerable nerve.

In short, Obama got Eastwooded.

BuckeyeSam on September 3, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I’m leaving the thread to go watch the Clint Eastwood marathon on AMC.

BuckeyeSam on September 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Most of us have already said we thought it was genius. That the liberal trolls can only key on the optics and not the content is telling, no?

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Yeah, sorry if I repeated what everyone’s been saying ad nauseum. Been in and out the last few days.

Like I said, I work with libs who have a sense of humor and “got” and appreciated Clint’s performance. Other libs either don’t have any sense of humor and are incredibly thin skinned about any criticism of Obama, or they seem downright mean.

So quick are the tolerant libs to jump to age-ist attacks. They did the same to Reagan. It’s really nasty. They seem to despise old people. Instead of learning from those with more wisdom and experience, they’re like perpetual 18-year olds who think they know everything.

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m trying to help you guys learn a little about politics. The things that feel good on a visceral level, are not always helpful in the broader sense. You need to differentiate between your heart and your brain.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 6:55 PM

That *you* attempt to help educate anyone – much less ‘professionally’ – is, quite frankly, a borderline criminal act of fraud.

Midas on September 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Nothing to be sorry about. My comment wasn’t clear. I thought you, like many other commenters on the thread, hit it out of the park. I’m the one who should be sorry if I made you feel that way.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

He deserved every breath of it, and then some. Your President is a hateful, destructive sociopath whose intent is to bring this country to its knees. His intentions aren’t honorable, and he’s not a nice guy.

Right Mover on September 3, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Like I said, I work with libs who have a sense of humor and “got” and appreciated Clint’s performance. Other libs either don’t have any sense of humor and are incredibly thin skinned about any criticism of Obama, or they seem downright mean.

Hey. Take your best shot. But then ask yourself why Romney got no bounce, despite Clint’s performance.

I have a great life and it takes no great effort. Maybe you don’t get what an impression hypocrisy makes.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Pleased to see that you’re not hunting through my old posts. Have a lovely Labor Day — you know, celebrating the unions that got us all the five day week.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM

your snotty little attitude about urban life, by the way, is one reason why African Americans and Hispanics will never vote Republican.

Have a nice life in your soulless suburb.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Thank you Ernest Hemmingway.

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Try not to wet your pants when you go to the bathroom.

itsspideyman on September 3, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Like I said, I work with libs who have a sense of humor and “got” and appreciated Clint’s performance. Other libs either don’t have any sense of humor and are incredibly thin skinned about any criticism of Obama, or they seem downright mean.

So quick are the tolerant libs to jump to age-ist attacks. They did the same to Reagan. It’s really nasty. They seem to despise old people. Instead of learning from those with more wisdom and experience, they’re like perpetual 18-year olds who think they know everything.

Firefly_76 on September 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

As far as the libs are concerned I see one demographic with a distinct lack of representation: those who saw it, and dismissed it because it was ineffective. Same thing I’ve noticed among conservatives, indies, and liberals… It had an impact, and getting Barry’s defenders to slobber over themselves embarrassingly in indignation is just as good in its own way. The undecideds Eastwood didn’t turn off of Obama directly, they will with their violent hamfisted rhetoric.

And as far as mocking old people, yeah, they do that. That tendency would be something really detrimental for them if for some reason seniors had a tendency to flock to the polls more than others…

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 9:10 PM

this has been a real good weekend

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Pleased to see that you’re not hunting through my old posts. Have a lovely Labor Day — you know, celebrating the unions that got us all the five day week.
urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM

And priced American goods so out of the ballpark that they’re essentially worthless to foriegn markets. And ensured that teachers would be the laser-driven focal points in all considerations to education instead of our students until we lagged behind even third world countries in math and science.

I could go on but I’ll skip the taxpayer dollars to save GM union pensions and wasted taxpayer dollars on union sponsored witchhunts in Wisconcin.

Yay unions?

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Saw Clint live, loved it.

Saw it again and loved it even more.

1921 C DRUM on September 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

“Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.”
I’m amazed at the number of people, including the pundit-razzi, who’ve forgotten that Eastwood is a film actor. Unless your Tom Cruise who apparently studied at the Gilbert Gottfried school of acting shouting the voice and the words aren’t as important as the actions/reactions. And those actions are kept small, because everything on camera comes off as big.
That said, Clint spit tobacco into the eyes of the chosen one and his band of masked outlaws & Czars. “… they work for you.”

kregg on September 3, 2012 at 9:22 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Why do the Republicans hate the middle class?

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Why do the Republicans hate the middle class?

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

It’s liberals who steal everything they earn. Who hates the middle class?

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Obviously you have other more important issues than beating President Obama. You wailed than any other primary candidate would ensure an Obama victory. Now you carp because I’m defending him against your progressive Republican condemnations? Dude, there’s no pleasing you. hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Obviously you have trouble thinking rationally. I write one criticism of the Romney campaign’s handling of an important issue and you conclude that I don’t care whether he beats Obama.

How was my criticism of the Romney campaign’s failure to refute Obama’s lies – about whose policies caused the banking crisis – a progressive condemnation?

And how are you defending Romney? You’re just attacking me because I criticized the unelectable choice of Santorum, in whom you invested so much.

And yes, Mitt will beat Obama. And he’s the only candidate who can.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Pleased to see that you’re not hunting through my old posts. Have a lovely Labor Day — you know, celebrating the unions that got us all the five day week.
urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM

By the way, that would be Henry Ford… Remember him? Wealthy industrialist who did build his business. A man who voluntarily sought to the welfare of his employees if anything a bit too much. Hated socialists unions who hated him back. Nice try though.

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM

For whatever reason, Conservatives don’t seem to love funky urban neighborhoods. And those of us who live here are unlikely to support a party that — as a matter of policy — dislikes cities and the the kind of people who live here.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 6:48 PM

You are welcome to your city life, and I’m glad you enjoy it. But it is time that you city dwellers stop telling us out here in flyover country what to do with our land, our energy sources and our food production.

Keep up your arrogance and your stupidity and soon we will send you a message you will understand. We will allow you to starve as you freeze in the dark.

Yoop on September 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Re: the (empty) chair. It struck me as the type of prop (method) actors use to get into the proper frame of mind. In this case, a certain Mr. O, a poorly performing, arrogant and sullen employee is about to get a dressing down from his boss, Mr. E in the role of we-the-people. Which (after disrespecting his employer with language and an attitude Mr. O is known to use) is going to end with “your measure has been taken and you’ve been found wanting, you’re fired, now get out of my sight.”

Mr. E even asks him to step aside to let Mr. R begin cleaning up the mess he’s created. Hmm.. Remember the clamor in the MSM in 2008 asking that Mr. B remove himself in November so Mr. O could begin to save the earth and earn his Nobel immediately? Certainly seems more deserved in this case.

Well done. I hope I am half as able when I’m 80. I suspect the leftists have yet to appreciate how Mr. E’s skit has exposed their emperor, and is inexorably destroying the facades of their entire Potemkin village.

aritai on September 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Saw Clint live, loved it.
Saw it again and loved it even more.
1921 C DRUM

You lucky dog!

Tell us more details.
The personal testimonies about Mitt were so powerful for me.

I was in Mitt’s corner after these church members told their story.

What was the atmosphere in the building?

Typicalwhitewoman on September 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Obviously you have trouble thinking rationally.

You keep sayiong that like it’s a potion to win an argument. maybe it doesn’t mean what you think.

I write one criticism of the Romney campaign’s handling of an important issue and you conclude that I don’t care whether he beats Obama.

You’re not thinking critically or comprehending what people comment to you. I think you’re driving away voters that might otherwise vote for Mitt because you’re clueless as to the tener of your comments. You’re divisive within the core of Republican voters and have been since the primaries.

How was my criticism of the Romney campaign’s failure to refute Obama’s lies – about whose policies caused the banking crisis – a progressive condemnation?

You were commenting about Bush Policies. Again, you g=forget what you write.

And how are you defending Romney? You’re just attacking me because I criticized the unelectable choice of Santorum, in whom you invested so much.

I invested nothing in any of the candidates. I just defended all of them while you acted like a liberal using invectives against the candidates you didn’t like.

And yes, Mitt will beat Obama. And he’s the only candidate who can.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Only if you quit alienating other Conservatives.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Caught this from the other night. Won’t ruin the fun. ;)

kim roy on September 3, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I still say that the President didn’t deserve what Eastwood did.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

.
And I still say that America didn’t deserve what Ocommie has done.

Perspective.

FlaMurph on September 3, 2012 at 10:05 PM

…I have had to watch Clint Eastwood’s skit over and over again (since I’m not the sharpest knife in the utensil drawer)…just like I had to watch the GodFather numerous times, before I caught all the links to their characters during their lifetimes.)
If people can’t see the genius of what Eastwood did…you’re not even a spoon in the drawer!

KOOLAID2 on September 3, 2012 at 10:21 PM

You’re not thinking critically or comprehending what people comment to you. I think you’re driving away voters that might otherwise vote for Mitt because you’re clueless as to the tener of your comments. You’re divisive within the core of Republican voters and have been since the primaries.

It’s tenor, not tener. And it’s disdain, not distain. It’s not my fault my comments make you feel inadequate. I’m divisive? You notwithmittnitwits called him everything from a pig to a dog. You can dish it out, but like liberals, you can’t take it

How was my criticism of the Romney campaign’s failure to refute Obama’s lies – about whose policies caused the banking crisis – a progressive condemnation?

You were commenting about Bush Policies. Again, you g=forget what you write.

You obviously didn’t understand my first comment. I didn’t criticize Bush’s policies. I said Obama was getting away with blaming Bush for the banking crisis – and the economic meltdown – when in fact it was the Democrat’s CRA which created the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

It’s Xoom and autocorrect and you get no points for correcting my typos. Sorry pal.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Been looking at the empty chairs. They are so great. Obama has definitely been Eastwooded.

I really didn’t think they would be dumb enough to copy his act, but they were. Truly pathetic.

texanpride on September 3, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Another thing Basil, you look and you’ll find a ton of my comments defending every single candidate during the primaries. I defended Mitt against almost every attack against his faith. You’ll have a very tough time finding me calling anyone a name. You’re the one who used fr0thy in comments about Santorum. Don’t lump me in a group you belong to.

Very hypocritical.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 10:52 PM

It’s Xoom and autocorrect and you get no points for correcting my typos. Sorry pal. hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 10:41 PM

You spell tenor – tener and disdain -distain.

The e is nowhere near the o and the t is nowhere near the d. These are comprehendos, not typos. And you aren’t man enough to admit it.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Whatever Dude. That’s your argument? Do you want me to find instances where they’re spelled correctly in my comments. I always think when you have them attacking typos, they’ve completely given up.

Answer this, do you accuse me of name-calling directed at Romney while you know for a fact you used the worst invectives for Rick Santorum yourself. Is that why you feel the need to attack the composition and not the context? Are you man enough to admit that?

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 11:01 PM

I’m trying to help you guys learn a little about politics. The things that feel good on a visceral level, are not always helpful in the broader sense. You need to differentiate between your heart and your brain.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 6:55 PM

An Obama supporter lecturing people on the topic of “things that feel good on a visceral level, are not always helpful in the broader sense” results in a permanently broken irony meter.

ebrown2 on September 3, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Another thing Basil, you look and you’ll find a ton of my comments defending every single candidate during the primaries. I defended Mitt against almost every attack against his faith. You’ll have a very tough time finding me calling anyone a name. You’re the one who used fr0thy in comments about Santorum. Don’t lump me in a group you belong to.

Very hypocritical.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I’m not doing a search. Romney was viciously attacked. I responded to those attacks. If Santorum had won the GOP Primary, we would be looking at 4 more years of Obama. I don’t remember you defending Romney from vicious attacks during the Primaries. I raised a substantive issue with my first comment. You responded with a personal attack on me. My criticisms of Santorum have obviously left their mark.

Work on your spelling.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I’m not doing a search. Romney was viciously attacked. I responded to those attacks. If Santorum had won the GOP Primary, we would be looking at 4 more years of Obama. I don’t remember you defending Romney from vicious attacks during the Primaries. I raised a substantive issue with my first comment. You responded with a personal attack on me. My criticisms of Santorum have obviously left their mark.

Oh, you left your mark. You attacked everyone who had a question or concern about Mitt during the primaries. Do you admit that while you’re railing on others for name-calling, you yourself called Santorum fr0thy of a sort?

Work on your spelling.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM

And BTW, tener and tenor are both words recognized by my table and d is actually quite close to the t. But then again, I’m the biggest critic of my own typos. Are you the biggest critic of your divisive name-calling?

Work on your people skills.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Oh, you left your mark. You attacked everyone who had a question or concern about Mitt during the primaries. Do you admit that while you’re railing on others for name-calling, you yourself called Santorum fr0thy of a sort?

Everyone who had a question or concern (oh how gentle you all were). My goodness. I had no idea I was that prolific. Or you that unhinged.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 11:58 PM

To “typicalwhitewoman” at 930 pm: When I said I saw Clint “live” I meant at the time. I watched on TV like everyone else. I wish I could have been there! Sorry for the confusion.

1921 C DRUM on September 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM

As an interesting follow up to my first comment – which unfortunately received no response other than hawkdriver’s ad hominen attack on me – the Daily Caller has an interesting article on Obama’s role in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Basilsbest on September 4, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Everyone who had a question or concern (oh how gentle you all were). My goodness. I had no idea I was that prolific. Or you that unhinged.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 11:58 PM

I’m not talking about a minority of ABR commenters. I’m talking about me. Find a vitriolic comment I made. And you’re quick with the insults. Unhidged? Please! But go find that comment I made about Romney. While you’re looking, remember this exchange. You sent a comment my way out of left field, (must have hit a nerve) after I said this.

The bottom line is there’s nothing hard about liking Romney and Ryan. Save the vitriol by his more hateful shills here, I’m really happy this go-around. And it makes me wonder how it all might have panned out in 08 if Mitt had won the primaries. I like our chances for a landslide this time.

R2/012

hawkdriver on August 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Vitriol my a$$. Romney was viciously attacked by a majority on this site. When those of us who like Romney stood up for him, the ABR morons turned their attacks on us. We have been sweetness and light throughout. And we were right about Mitt. He is running a strong campaign and he will be a great President.

Basilsbest on August 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

“Anyone But Romney” isn’t running. Neither is Palin. Nor any other White Knight. It’s Romney or Sanctusfrothamorum. IOW Romney or O(blivion.)

Basilsbest on March 31, 2012 at 1:30 PM

You can’t have it both ways. You complain that the ABRs called names. You did too. You think you might mave incited some of it?

hawkdriver on September 4, 2012 at 12:27 AM

I’m glad to see this on Hot Air. 100 years from now they will be studying Eastwood’s brilliant performance the way we do Sam Clemens, and Will Rogers. It was astounding to see so many highly compensated pundits cluelessly bloviating about something that went right over their head.

DaMav on September 4, 2012 at 12:27 AM

oops, sorry B. “unhinged”

hawkdriver on September 4, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Karl,
If there be anyone of the numbers of print and video comment I’ve been reading through these past number of days about Clints purpose and performance YOU HAVE HIT IT -BANGO-DEAD CENTER.

It is my feelings exactly. He knew what he was doing. What he was saying and how he was going to present it in such a way that it would be a “Emmy Awards” of convention speeches. I got it all the way and thank you for doing a great job in getting in post form.

This is a Emmy Winning Post Brother.

auspatriotman on September 4, 2012 at 1:22 AM

As time passes, I really come to appreciate Clint Eastwood.

It was pretty brilliant.

God knows, it stood out.

Watch it again.

Barky is toast when Clint says bye. Might as well be John Wayne.

wolly4321 on September 4, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Clint delivered a huge bounce. He bounced the audience right into Romney’s hand

Except for the anticipation of Ryan’s speech, the convention was a long stream of controlled talk, mostly bios. Not saying that was bad. Just saying it was dishing out same-o same-o to an audience that was not totally united. Ann Romney also caused a spark because she did not perform as expected, but ran a conversation with the audience

The Clint came out and did not not give the bio He looked like he was off the reservation

A secret of great comedy is the one two punch, People laugh with relief when they are walked into a joke. When Clint looked like he was ignoring cues to behave, he gained credibility. He gave a share of the convention back to the Little People.

Rubio came out and was able to emote Spanish without the audience focusing as much on the preference being given to the only group that refuses to speak english – since we assume they have been here long enough to get a legal voter registration.

Then Romney bounce out, happy as a kid at a picnic, and the audience knew he didnt mind Clint at all, so he was on their side too. Pretty good, I’d say

And, the MSM carried water for Clint with their tut tut’s which also made the joke on them

Just watched Clint in the good, bad and ugly. Its all there including the smile

entagor on September 4, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Karl wrote, “Even may of Eastwood’s defenders have described it as rambling.”

I think you meant ‘MaNY’

TigerPaw on September 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Don’t worry as come November 6, Obama will be know as the Black Custer.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Most evocative comment of the thread for me!

What a unique image.

The Black Custer riding into the heart of Indian territory against all warnings, vaunting his own cult of personality over the communication system and ire of the natives, as did the young and brash Civil War hero Custer.

Many parallels to draw.

cane_loader on September 4, 2012 at 2:59 AM

A lot of great comments here! I was not happy with the idea of another “celebutard” telling America who to vote for. That was before Clint’s speech, which was priceless.

I agree with those who say that Clint gave Obama the shiv and he did it in a subtle and entertaining way. He found the soft spots and exploited them without his victim even know what happened :-)

MJBrutus on September 4, 2012 at 6:12 AM

First words out of my mouth, when I watched it, “That was exactly what Clint Eastwood intended, every word and gesture was what he wanted”. Not saying I got it all but immediately I knew that there was a moment a few weeks early when Mitt said “Let Clint do whatever he wants”. Love to know if the campaign folk knew anythign at all. Will we ever know? Hate that. Hope somebody will tell us.

I watched it a couple times and love it more each time. Its like a good movie.. you can rewatch it and enjoy it.

I am sad to say many of my conservative allies DO lack a bit of a sense of humor and a bit of a sense of drama. Sad. This was great theatre. Worth the price of the ticket!

Thank you Clint. I am going to be planting some chairs at random in some fun places, like where unions are currently picketing… late at night.. set that empty bent back chair along side the inflatable rats.

RutRoh on September 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Not every idiot is a liberal, but all liberals are idiots. I would try and explain to you how the world really works, but I can tell from your collective comments you have the mental capacity of the average parrot, because you only spout the Democrat talking points and lack the capacity for self thought.

Wolftech on September 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM

The empty chair was fun. It gave Clint all sorts of latitude. He used it well.

Yes, he came off a little rambling and, I thought at the time, he might have been channeling a bit of Foster Brooks.

But there is no doubt he had things he was going to say that night and he said them quite well. My favorite:

And whether you’re Democrat or whether you’re a Republican or whether you’re Libertarian or whatever, you’re the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let ‘em go.

Let ‘em go.

OK, just remember that. And I’m speaking out for everybody out there.

That should become part of a 30 second spot.

EconomicNeocon on September 4, 2012 at 11:54 AM

After making that last post, I found my way to an outstanding mix of Eastwood’s “It’s Halftime In America” commercial and his “Eastwooding” of the President. Check out We own this Country: Clint Eastwood reloaded.

EconomicNeocon on September 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Well put Karl. In addition I would add this: Eastwood adds credibility to the coveted independents & potential cross overs in a few ways. First, he’s not a career politician w/ an obvious self aggrandizing political motive. Most are keenly aware of the scripted behavior of politics. This speech was spoken like an every day American, a real down home American, not some flashy pol.

It was the ONLY unscripted speech in the entire convention & it came off that way. People relate to that, are craving for that. I think the reason why Cristy has become so popular (convention speech not withstanding), is his off the cuff, matter of fact, polls be damned approach. No teleprompters, handlers, focus groups, etc., just be straight w/ us.

Eastwood delivered something no pol could. Unadulterated believability. He had nothing to gain, nothing to lose.

Reno232 on September 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Yes, Clint Eastwood is a good actor, maybe a great one.

On stage, that means overacting so the whole audience get it because some of whom are far from the stage. And, there’s the ham thing, aka ego.

On film, with twenty foot tall faces, it’s all about underacting and being believable.

Of course, Eastwood was playing a role. He sounded like a Montana rancher talking over the fence with another. Even in the pauses I can imagine the other saying something. The other is not there on stage either.

It’s like an actor talking on the phone; we hear only his side of the conversation.

Or maybe he was playing an Okie from the dust bowl; you know, one of those plain ole folks with common sense.

How quick the critics were to say he acted as if he were senile. This shows the respect they have for a master and for their elders; they think they are better than him. Just how smart it is to mock what you may become is something to notice. The critics’ derision is simply whistling past the graveyard.

The genius of this act was it was unexpected (and unforgiven by some). I agree if this had been a conventional convention speech it would have faded from memory to most by now. But what has happened? The d&@*!# fools are still talking about it!

Before the twenty somethings laugh at ole Clint, I would like to ask what would a speech from a typical twenty something sound like? “Like, um, dude, er, I mean, you know, uh, dude, whatever, I dunno”? Eastwood made his points and got his lines out. Clint was original. What’s in your brain?

Kudos to Karl for getting it.

billrowe on September 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3