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

Bill Maher said he “killed it.”

Resist We Much on September 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

It wasn’t polished. Some parts were weak. Some parts were strong. It was a mixed bag.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

O’s been an empty chair for a long time. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgtkey0811/7922784700/lightbox/

BKeyser on September 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

They didn’t get it worng because they didn’t ever talk about what he did, they switched to Project Omac Palace Guard mode.

harlekwin15 on September 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Something else Eastwood slipped in with out much comment was a quote from Bill Clinton on Romneys “stellar” business experience. So much so that he repeated it.

katy on September 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

My favorite empty chair today.

hillsoftx on September 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Apparently, there is a video floating around Facebook with Betty White “interviewing” an empty throne that is supposed to be Romney.

Count to 10 on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Eastwood is sharp as a tack and deserves the Oscar. In my opinion we should also pin a medal on him for being the man to deflate Obama.

Eastwood stopped by and ran the bad guys out of town for us.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Eastwood begins with a touch of Admiral James Stockdale

His first words — “I know what you’re thinking”. Right away, that engenders recognition in 500 million people on the globe, I don’t know, maybe 1 billion people. Maybe 2 billion. This is uncharted territory, to be sure. That is the takeaway, not his rhetorical question about what he, a Hollywood actor, is doing there.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

We’re still talking about and posting pictures of an empty chair symbolizing a failed president. Winning. The media got it wrong.

Wait until Nov. 7 – we will hear the media wailing and crying when they find out just how wrong they got it.

Philly on September 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

The fact that Karl felt compelled to spend 1200 words to explain Eastwood underscores how bad the performance was. As with modern art and jokes, the amount of time spent explaining is inversely proportional to the success of the original effort.

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I’m sorry, but if it has to have multiple attempts to explain the intent it did not have the impact we wanted/needed. It was weird, painful to watch, and flopped…lets move on.

deuce on September 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

A programming note: AMC is playing 24 hours of Clint Eastwood movies…LOL.

d1carter on September 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

We own this country…
Politicians are employees of ours… And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let ‘em go.

I’m guessing that this line will be quoted when Mr. Eastwood, may he live to 120 in good health, is eulogized.

I wonder if “we own this country” was a deliberate riff on Reagan borrowing a line from Spencer Tracy’s “State of the Union” character, “I’m paying for this microphone” during a debate for the New Hampshire primary in 1980.

I’ve been saying since I first saw Eastwood’s performance live that it was brilliant and if not completely scripted, Eastwood knew exactly what he was doing. All the left leaning critics are playing right into his hands by driving more people to watch the video, hear him critique Obama’s failure and laugh at the failed president. Even Bill Maher said that Eastwood “killed” with the bit. The live audience was laughing their asses off.

Watch how his eyes smile as he goes from rambling doddering old geezer to skewering Obama, time after time. The pacing was perfect.

That Obama felt the need to respond with “This seat’s taken” shows how thin his skin is and how well Eastwood hit the mark.

Oh, and Urban Elitist, the fact that folks are talking about Clint means that they’re watching the video of him skewering Obama.

rokemronnie on September 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The best “Empty Chair” take off I’ve seen so far

http://p.twimg.com/A15DauACUAAZMgW.jpg

bayview on September 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You keep telling yourself that champ, we’ll see how America interpreted the whole fiasco on Nov 6th.

D-fusit on September 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The weaknesses were that Eastwood always has had a weak, rasping voice–exacerbated now by old age. But read the TEXT. A masterful evisceration of a pompous and hitherto sacrosanct popinjay. 90% of the people do not who gave what speech at the convention but EVERYBODY remembers the empty chair.This may have been the highlight of any political convention ever.

MaiDee on September 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

WRONG! They’re talking about the visual of the empty chair depicting the epic FAIL the 0dumbo presidency has been. And if they’re talking about that, they’re not bashing Romney. WIN!

Sasha List on September 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

it was the ramblings of a senile old man.

That is exactly what he wanted his critics, the usual suspects, to think and say.

The out of place tuft of hair was a nice touch. Anyone seriously think that was not deliberate?

The libs and lefties aren’t really very good at detecting subtlety and nuance after all, are they?

farsighted on September 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Eastwood won and won hard with this. The ones opposed to it are the Beltway insiders embarrassed to see their hero torn to shreds by a living legend they could not possibly hope to touch in return. It wasn’t mixed. It was a pure and solid victory.

The opinion that counts is that of the common man, and I’ve heard people that haven’t or have hardly spoken politically all year talk about Clint’s speech, and favorably.

“Empty chair” has become its own symbol, from those placing them outside and taking photos on Twitter to people who are lecturing empty chairs as a cathartic shredding of public figures they cannot respect.

The video itself is viral, thanks to a biased media. They convinced everybody to listen in to the demented old man, and everybody did… but they found that Clint didn’t sound as crazy as the media told them… and with every viewing he made more sense.

This was a defining moment of this campaign, one of those things people look back upon after it is over.

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

And the facts that the libs have been defending teh won from the senile old has been for the last few days shows exactly how deep this cut.

D-fusit on September 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

You keep telling yourself that champ, we’ll see how America interpreted the whole fiasco on Nov 6th.

D-fusit on September 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Hey — I kno wthat there’s a statistically significant chance that Obama will lose.

However, convention week, where the big stories were Chris Christie talking about himself, Paul Ryan lying, and Clint Eastwood rambling — and not about the nominee, Mitt Romney (remember him?) — was a train wreck.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

So he was just pretending to be a rambling old man who forgot to take his medications. A masterful performance, in that case.

Armin Tamzarian on September 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Interesting to note that Clint has not made any media appearances since the Convention. Just wait. He’s letting the media make a really big mess and then he’s gonna shove their nose in it. Heh.

JimK on September 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

WRONG! They’re talking about the visual of the empty chair depicting the epic FAIL the 0dumbo presidency has been. And if they’re talking about that, they’re not bashing Romney. WIN!

Sasha List on September 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

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

Today is empty chair day. Mine is in the middle of the driveway. Hope my neighbors get it.

Christian Conservative on September 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

D-fusit on September 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

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

There were a couple of slow spots but otherwise it was well done.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You’re just part of the machine made up of dupes and boot lickers. The left controls the narrative and then floods the airwaves, newspapers, and new sites with their propaganda. Then when one dares challenge it you come back with your little comments about how it wasn’t a good or effective presentation. One day you will look back and see how you were used and you will feel deeply embarrassed and used.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM</blockquote

LOL…you're a fool.

HumpBot Salvation on September 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Nope, CE has had no effect on the Progs…LOL.

d1carter on September 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh sure. The Romney campaign must be devastated at this fiasco. The last thing they need is for voters to be focused on the all-time most brutal and thorough comedic shredding of this failed President. Where people could have focused on Mitt himself briefly then be looking at what the Democrats have to offer, instead they’re replaying a video discussing Obama’s failed promises, weak economic policy, and arrogant narcissism – all coming from a man with more blue collar credibility and popular respect that any politician of either party could ever hope to attain. Yeah, the Romney campaign sure doesn’t need that…

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

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

Hurling names at people is the surest signal possible that you’ve lost this argument and you are aware that you’ve lost.

Try to scrape up whatever is left of your dignity.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Harry Callahan may have understood that a man has to know his limitations. Eastwood knows his…

Obi-Wrong Baracki, on the other hand, knows not his own–except, perhaps, he’s long realized the inconvenient truth that his chrysostomic oratory falters & turns to dust with without electronic assistance.

Olo_Burrows on September 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

http://hashtags.org/EmptyChairDay

redridinghood on September 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I wonder if “we own this country” was a deliberate riff on Reagan borrowing a line from Spencer Tracy’s “State of the Union” character, “I’m paying for this microphone” during a debate for the New Hampshire primary in 1980.

rokemronnie on September 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

IMHO the main impact (“Sudden Impact”?! :lol:) is the iconic nature of the speech, with its iconic lines, or, lines derivative of iconic lines. Like the finish:

Eastwood: Go Ahead ..
Audience: Make My Day!

Clint knew he was a prop, and the chair was a prop, and the star was the lines. Which he delivered.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

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

You prove nothing other than that you have an honest screenname. I’m seeing people that I didn’t even know appreciating this. One non-political fb acquaintance declared Eastwood a genius for the bit, and argued that her favorable reaction wasn’t even so much a political view as it was a “Clint view.”

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Having every single news channel quoting Hollywood icon Eastwood…”when someone isn’t doing their job..you got to let them go” sure was devastating to the Romney camp.

HumpBot Salvation on September 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

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

And proud to be a bitter clinger! My Sig Sauer P250 feels just right in my hand! And I’m pretty accurate, thank you!

Oh, and just because you drew a line through my comment doesn’t make it any less valid! Let’s talk again on Nov 7th, shall we?

Sasha List on September 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Apparently, there is a video floating around Facebook with Betty White “interviewing” an empty throne that is supposed to be Romney.

Count to 10 on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And that makes sense/is funny how?

I repeat what I said in the headlines – damn liberals are dumb.

gophergirl on September 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

An empty chair for an empty suit.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

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

I seem to recall you saying the same thing about Chik-fil-A Day.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Hmm, last actor that goofed up in the politidal arena, this is what happened:

At the height of the Cold War in 1984 U.S. President Ronald Reagan was about to appear on a radio interview and, as a soundcheck, said “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The comment, while not actually broadcasted, did eventually spread via rumor around the world… It was not appreciated in Moscow.

Another senile clown that didn’t know what he was doing…

LOL!!!

patch on September 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

My only complaint. Instead of talking to a chair, it should have been a large stool. That would have been much more appropriate.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

The fact that Karl felt compelled to spend 1200 words to explain Eastwood underscores how bad the performance was. As with modern art and jokes, the amount of time spent explaining is inversely proportional to the success of the original effort.

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

The “fact” that you counted the words in the article, well, let’s all say it…LOSER. Also, we’re all still trying to explain “hope and change”. I guess that goes to your inversely proportional bullshit. Clint Eastwood rocked it, and on Nov 6th you and your fellow loser, word counting, self proclaimed turdban elitists are gonna find out just how much.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh sure. The Romney campaign must be devastated at this fiasco. The last thing they need is for voters to be focused on the all-time most brutal and thorough comedic shredding of this failed President.
Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Yep nobody’s going to the news sites or youtube to watch this after all the play the story has gotten. Nobody.

/

Urban’s dumber than a box of democrats.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I got the “Stellar” comment, too.
He was so good, almost too good for today’s crowd. The younger people are so accustomed to crude and in your face deliveries, they were just not able to get it. Also, I think the assumption he was
rambling was due to his age. Had he been younger, they might have been more open to his delivery.

The marxists just couldn’t get over being mocked and made fun of-Clint Eastwood gave them Alinsky on steroids but with class. I loved it.

texanpride on September 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

One word…Brilliant.

StarLady on September 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You’re just part of the machine made up of dupes and boot lickers. The left controls the narrative and then floods the airwaves, newspapers, and new sites with their propaganda. Then when one dares challenge it you come back with your little comments about how it wasn’t a good or effective presentation. One day you will look back and see how you were used and you will feel deeply embarrassed and used.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

You’re like a kid, unable to differentiate between what you like and what is actually effective. When Mitt loses by a very small margin, you’re going to think: “maybe if the story out of the convention hgad been about how great Mitt’s speech was, instead of some aging actor, we might have carried New Hampshire insted of losing it by a few thousand votes.

Oh sure. The Romney campaign must be devastated at this fiasco. The last thing they need is for voters to be focused on the all-time most brutal and thorough comedic shredding of this failed President. Where people could have focused on Mitt himself briefly then be looking at what the Democrats have to offer, instead they’re replaying a video discussing Obama’s failed promises, weak economic policy, and arrogant narcissism – all coming from a man with more blue collar credibility and popular respect that any politician of either party could ever hope to attain. Yeah, the Romney campaign sure doesn’t need that…

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Obama’s negatives are already very high. But so are Romney’s. The most inmpoprtant thing the convention could have accomplished would have been to focus on Romney’s positive attributes. They failed, and Clint Eastood was part of that. Eastwood made himself the story — a rookie mistake. He’s not supposed to be promoting himself, he’s supposed to be working for Mitt.

Oh, and another sure sign of how bad the perfromance was? Clint is unavailable for comment.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I thought you guys wore “bitter clinger” as a badge of honor. At any rate, I was speaking tongue in cheek, and apologize.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Another senile clown that didn’t know what he was doing…

LOL!!!

patch on September 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

So is this clueless suit senile
or
is he a clown ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

burrata on September 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

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

I seem to recall you saying the same thing about Chik-fil-A Day.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Urban thinks that wishes simply come true. He still is clicking his heels over the Unemployment rate, GDP Growth, Gitmo, etc etc.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

The “fact” that you counted the words in the article, well, let’s all say it…LOSER. Also, we’re all still trying to explain “hope and change”. I guess that goes to your inversely proportional bullshit. Clint Eastwood rocked it, and on Nov 6th you and your fellow loser, word counting, self proclaimed turdban elitists are gonna find out just how much.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

You just copy and paste into Word. It takes about a second. It seemed more concise than saying “the fact that Karly undertook an endless and painfully slow explication…”

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

O’s been an empty chair for a long time. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgtkey0811/7922784700/lightbox/

BKeyser on September 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

That pic just makes me sad. A brain dead electorate put those goofs in charge?

arnold ziffel on September 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Eastwood still has his finger on the popular pulse in a way pols and pundits never will.

And the libs and lefties and Team Obama, who think divining the “popular pulse” is their domain, their area of expertise, don’t get it.

Of course, this is historically consistent. Libs and lefties never did get Clint. And they still don’t.

farsighted on September 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It was brilliance. And the more that time passes, the more brilliant it becomes.

the new aesthetic on September 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The fact that Karl felt compelled to spend 1200 words to explain Eastwood underscores how bad the performance was. As with modern art and jokes, the amount of time spent explaining is inversely proportional to the success of the original effort.

The fact that we’re still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a fiasco the whole thing was.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you’re sayin’ you don’t like the taste of that crap sandwich.

Too bad, yeasty. There’s plenty more where that came from.

Solaratov on September 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Clint was doing his version of Jimmy Stewart in the 1939 movie, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”.

albill on September 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

So, by your standards this lengthy explanation must mean that your initial comment didn’t go over too well.

Imagine that.

You know there is an explanation for Karl’s post that seems to have eluded you.

Its an attempt to explain Eastwood’s performance, and that’s exactly what it was… a performance of stellar caliber….to people like you.

The rest of us got it the first time around.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Obama’s negatives are already very high. But so are Romney’s. The most inmpoprtant thing the convention could have accomplished would have been to focus on Romney’s positive attributes. They failed, and Clint Eastood was part of that. Eastwood made himself the story — a rookie mistake. He’s not supposed to be promoting himself, he’s supposed to be working for Mitt.

Oh, and another sure sign of how bad the perfromance was? Clint is unavailable for comment.

Yeah, that was such a bad performance that Democratic union leaders are comforted over Romney’s failure to send the right message at the convention. If Eastwood had hit home or damaged Zero at all, they’d be sputtering with violent threats, or foolishly throwing and kicking an empty chair. This is a perfectly calm reaction that shows confidence in their message.

But if you think Eastwood was a failure that’s fine by me. Make sure all of your undecided friends see the clip of his speech, so they can see for themselves how bad it was or something. It’s ineffective anyway, so you’d have no reason to be afraid of it, right?

As for being unavailable for comment… ever hear of leaving on a high note so that the message lingers? But what would an old man like Eastwood know about working a crowd. He’s only been in entertainment for 57 years.

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

National Empty Chair Day= vindication for Eastwood.

cheetah2 on September 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

You missed this Karl…..when Eastwood, ostensibly referring to Biden, said “Just kind of a grin with a body behind it” he was referring it back to the one with the auto-smile: Obama

Most people have several smiles from small smirk to humungous grin but Obama has only one and he turns it off and on like a traffic light.

MaggiePoo on September 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Spot on Karl…

Kaptain Amerika on September 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

By the way…just thought I’d mention… for those of you who thought Eastwood’s performance ‘missed the mark’ or was in some other fashion ‘a failure’…

The newly elected head of AFSCME, Saunders, just tried top pull the same bit using the chair… only claiming it was Eastwood to whom he was speaking… at THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION.

Gee… for a bit that was such a failure… it sure seems to be getting under the skin of those on the LEFT.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Trump softened obama up with the birther stuff.
Clint goes to obamas head with the “empty chair”

its not even november yet. we may lose this election, but at least we took obama down a few pegs.

i’ll at least sleep a little easier tonite. i know you won’t:)

renalin on September 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Apparently, there is a video floating around Facebook with Betty White “interviewing” an empty throne that is supposed to be Romney.

Count to 10 on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And that makes sense/is funny how?

gophergirl on September 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

That, Jugear’s “this chair is taken” tweet, along with the fact that one of the communist labor movement speakers trotted out an empty chair to one of his speeches today to bash Eastwood all give the lie to the fact that this was an effective performance by Eastwood. It got under their skin and they are trying to respond but failing. And that is awesome. oops, since MKH is now a contributor: … and that’s swell.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

They will be talking about that moment for generations. And there’s not the Liberals can do about it, as evidenced on this thread.

kingsjester on September 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Even may of Eastwood’s defenders have described it as rambling. This likely makes Eastwood’s day.

They are not defending him if they label it as rambling. The truth hurts, and those that are ideologically liberal may hide behind some sort of RHINO cloak, will never get the point of his appearance.

TX-96 on September 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

So, by your standards this lengthy explanation must mean that your initial comment didn’t go over too well.

Imagine that.

You know there is an explanation for Karl’s post that seems to have eluded you.

Its an attempt to explain Eastwood’s performance, and that’s exactly what it was… a performance of stellar caliber….to people like you.

The rest of us got it the first time around.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I came in well short of 1200 words, for whatever that’s worth.
I “get” Clint’s performance and even enjoyed it to a certain extent. That doesn’t make it effective politics.

And, to be sure, those who didn’t “get” Eastwood’s performance? They’re not spending their time reading blogs in hopes of having it explained to them. They’re wondering if he’s senile. As I said, if you have to explain it, it didn’t work.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

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

It’s KILLIN’ you. isn’t it, yeasty!!!!

And who cares what “the rest of the world” is talking about? They don’t get a vote in our elections.

Why, they’re even less important than you are…and that’s going some.

Solaratov on September 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Voters still like Clint.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Scroll down a tad, for the picture with the empty suit, on the chair.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

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

Liar!!!

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

What will have put the final nail into Obama’s presidency is “You didn’t build that”.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

The fact that Karl felt compelled to spend 1200 words to explain Eastwood underscores how bad the performance was. As with modern art and jokes, the amount of time spent explaining is inversely proportional to the success of the original effort.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

That’s an absurd pair of assertions, neither of which I accept. Personally, I found Karl right on point with not a single word wasted.

This little routine by Eastwood may be the turning point in the election, and it’s well worth discussing. Polls show that Florida voters, particularly oldsters and undecideds, may have turned around over the weekend as a direct result of Thursday’s Convention speeches, and we all know how close Florida was in 2004 when Gore lost by a couple of thousand votes.

Fifty years from now, I predict historians will be writing about Clint’s deviously effective stunt and the way it turned the election around. And you will be crying then because you were one of the doubters.

Burke on September 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

To see this same sort of stuff by the master, Bob Newhart, I suggest the movie “Hell is for Heroes”

Pfc. James E. Driscoll
: [fake telephone conversation with “headquarters” to fool the Germans listening in]
Temple Red. This is Lt Driscoll.
Wh- Don’t send them up here. Sir, I have five men in each foxhole now. I don’t have room for anymore, sir.
Have you tried Charlie company, sir?
Oh, I see. Well, sir, there’s still a war going on in Japan, you know, sir, you might send them over there.

J_Crater on September 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

As you said.. “for whatever that’s worth”. How transcendental of you.

When you’re at the polls in November, looking around trying to find another person other than yourself who voted for Obama and four more years of misery, you’ll suddenly find you’ve become something of an existentialist… by default.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

It wasn’t polished. Some parts were weak. Some parts were strong. It was a mixed bag.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Sorry, Paul-Cincy, Clint Produced, Directed, wrote and delivered his skit, perfectly! You were expecting a smooth political speech, maybe. This was mmuch better tham that!

tomshup on September 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

The most inmpoprtant thing the convention could have accomplished would have been to focus on Romney’s positive attributes.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You appear to have missed the speeches before and after the Eastwood speech. You know, the ones that had people who actually knew Romney in the past (something your guy doesn’t ever seem to be able to do by the way) and demonstrated his humanity and compassion. Multiple objectives can be achieved in one convention, that’s why it goes on for three or four days. Apparently you are only able to hold one single thought at a time.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

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

The media and their liberal cohorts reacted like rabid dogs when Eastwood performed his defaming act and crushed their messiah. It was very effective . . . so effective it drove the left into spontaneous spasms of denial and rage. Sorry lefties, you lose on this one.

rplat on September 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

It wasn’t perfect. Most off the cuff stuff isn’t.

But it was interesting to see the media label the guy a senile old idiot.

CorporatePiggy on September 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

“this chair is taken” tweet, ….
AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Heh. No doubt it hit a nerve. Now the lackeys like Urban have received their marching orders.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

But read the TEXT. A masterful evisceration of a pompous and hitherto sacrosanct popinjay.

Just wanted to take a moment to offer “props” for outstanding use of “popinjay”.

RDuke on September 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

That his speech is still being talked about shows how effective it was.

supernova on September 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Bottom Line: No rational person can question Eastwood’s immense talent, creativity and impressive record of acting and directing. He’s a giant amongst the pigmy’s of hollywood, and he’s a self-acknowledged conservative. So OBOZO and the lunatic-left have two reasons to hate and slime him: he’s a self-made success and he doesn’t support them or their warped, extremist ideology.

TeaPartyNation on September 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You may have counted the words, but you obviously didn’t read them, particularly the final three paragraphs.

The reason explanation is needed is precisely because Eastwood was not speaking to the political junkies critiquing his speech. He was speaking to the people who would not have tuned into the RNC except to see Clint Eastwood. And I would bet those people would not fit the description of “urban elitist.”

Karl on September 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The chair has its own blog

http://emptychairoftheus.blogspot.com/

No Niks on September 3, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Intriguing observations about the “angry old white men” myth of the Left:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315751/who-really-angry-old-white-man-victor-davis-hanson#comments

onlineanalyst on September 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

You should see some of AMAZING ways that #emptychairday is being messages today across the country.

Ridicule based in unsettling truth is a most powerful weapon.

Eastwood used it masterfully. And he KNEW what it would cost him in Hollywood, and he DIDN’T CARE.

If only our **political leaders had that kind of chutzpah.

**one of the reasons that Scott Walker and some of the other Ruling Classers didn’t like the speech?……he PANNED THE POLITICIANS as well as Obama.

PappyD61 on September 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Messaged. (stinking auto complete).

PappyD61 on September 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Bottom Line: No rational person can question Eastwood’s immense talent: he’s a self-made success and he doesn’t support them or their warped, extremist idioceology.

TeaParty4 PM

fixed

cableguy615 on September 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

My favorite empty chair today.

hillsoftx on September 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I saw that one earlier and couldn’t stop laughing. That one and the one where the guy had a chair bowing to a laptop that had a picture of some Arab sheik on it were my favs.

TxAnn56 on September 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

One wonders where urbanelitist and upper-east-side-of-who-on-earth-knows live…

Do you reckon they live in uptown Manhattan? Or in Mom’s basement in suburban Omaha? GREAT CITY btw but then I’d say that and mean it.

CorporatePiggy on September 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Obama’s problem:
“A man’s got to know his limitations”.

Another Drew on September 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

http://emptychairoftheus.blogspot.com/

heh!!! ECOTUS has its own blog!!!!

ted c on September 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Elitist,
Of course you would feel that way–you’re and elitist. Most dems and libtards (media included) did not like it because it made fun of their boy king. The republicans who did not like it are, well, political elitists who probably have no idea how non-elitists perceive things. But what you and your fellow elitists(both dem and repub) do not understand is that Eastwood was not talking to you. He was speaking a foreign language to you that is only understandable by people who are not like you.

Actually, this is why Obutthead will lose this election in a landslide.* It’s not that Romney will get a mountain of votes, it’s more that people inclined to support Obutthead will not be excited enough to go out and vote for an empty chair.

*if it’s a fair election….which is a big “if” given all of the dead people who apparently support any democrap on the ballot

Now, Elitist, go back to your Urban hovel (mother’s basement)and chew on how really insignificant you are.

NOMOBO on September 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Clint Eastwood twas brillig with his slithy toves
They did gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were his borogoves
And his mome raths did outgrabe

Clint Eastwood took his vorpal sword in hand
Long time the Obaxome foe he sought
So rested he by an empty chair
And stood awhile in thought

One, two!
Red, White and Blue!
Clint Eastwood’s vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left Obama sliced and diced and with his head he went gallantphing back

Cheshire Cat on September 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It wasn’t polished.

Paul-Cincy on September 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

And therein laid the beauty of it all.

TxAnn56 on September 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I still can’t decide if he was talking haltingly and with an “uh” every 3rd or 4th word on purpose to mock Barackabama or it’s just the way he talks without a teleprompter as well.

SouthernGent on September 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Eastwood to Obama’s chair: “You didn’t fill that.”

Jim Treacher on September 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The media and their liberal cohorts reacted like rabid dogs when Eastwood performed his defaming act and crushed their messiah. It was very effective . . . so effective it drove the left into spontaneous spasms of denial and rage. Sorry lefties, you lose on this one.

rplat on September 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Actually, Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal were equally befuddled.

You may have counted the words, but you obviously didn’t read them, particularly the final three paragraphs.

The reason explanation is needed is precisely because Eastwood was not speaking to the political junkies critiquing his speech. He was speaking to the people who would not have tuned into the RNC except to see Clint Eastwood. And I would bet those people would not fit the description of “urban elitist.”

Karl on September 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The last three paragraphs were the most strained of all.

You appear to have missed the speeches before and after the Eastwood speech. You know, the ones that had people who actually knew Romney in the past (something your guy doesn’t ever seem to be able to do by the way) and demonstrated his humanity and compassion. Multiple objectives can be achieved in one convention, that’s why it goes on for three or four days. Apparently you are only able to hold one single thought at a time.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Most people missed them. Eastwood was the big draw. If he hadn’t sucked all the air out of the room, maybe people would be talking about Romney’s old friends. You’re supporting my point — Clint’s bizarro act was amusing but counterproductive.

As you said.. “for whatever that’s worth”. How transcendental of you.

When you’re at the polls in November, looking around trying to find another person other than yourself who voted for Obama and four more years of misery, you’ll suddenly find you’ve become something of an existentialist… by default.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Actually, my precinct is ablout 95% Democrat. If people at my polling place aren’t voting for Obama, they’re voting for the Green Party or the Socialist Workers Party.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

From another thread. Urban I see you->>

As they continue to prepare for the “Emperor has no clothes” moment …
But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities.
J_Crater on September 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3