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

Nicely analyzed piece, Karl.

Between Eastwood’s speech and Paul Ryan’s reference to the fading Obama poster in the college graduate’s bedroom in his parents’ house, the distinction between what Romney/Ryan offer and what Obama regurgitates is clear.

onlineanalyst on September 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM

That Eastwood may disagree with the GOP on some war issues is perfectly alright in this context

Some? More like just about all.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM

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

RDuke on September 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

LOL. Yeah, that deserves the same musical treatment they use in that beer commercial “you used a big word all correctly and stuff“.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I have little doubt he will be equally sharp promoting Trouble With the Curve in the next few weeks

This line intrigued me. Does this mean that Eastwood will be out on the morning show circuit promoting a movie where he might just inadvertently be asked about that strange performance at the RNC, and he can zing away at the president at will?

This could be fun!

UnderstandingisPower on September 3, 2012 at 6:28 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

Oh so they are as brainwashed as you. Thanks for admitting it.

Wow you really are pathetic. Not an original thought in that empty little head. Stay on the plantation buddy. Embarrassing.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Clint’s bit at the RNC was awesomely awesome in its awesomeness.

Did somebody say the D’s are supposed to be on tv this week?

Pass the popcorn, please. I just love the smell of libocrite heads exploding when the light gets in…

DeepWheat on September 3, 2012 at 6:30 PM

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.

Targeting Romney? No. Bush and McCain? Yes. And he was sure dropping a very strong ‘hint’ that he didn’t want Romney to be like Bush or McCain … or LBJ Obama either.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media didn’t get anything Clint Eastwood said wrong. They understood it perfectly, they are after all in the exact same business. No, Karl and so many others misunderstand the reaction of the media to what Clint Eastwood said and did. Karl and the others misunderstand because you still stubbornly insist on living in denial.

This is a break down of what Clint Eastwood said.

With Glint of Steel and speed of hand the knife doth cut so fast the victim feels not the mortal wounds.

Make no mistake about it what so ever, the media understood it 100 percent perfectly clear. What they are doing is attempting damage control. They are attempting to convince those who see or have seen Clint Eastwood’s soliloquy that they did not actually see or hear what they saw and heard, and that what they saw and heard did not have the meaning or impact that it genuinely had.

In this article I discuss revelations by Peter Ferrara and Daniel Greenfield on the reality of exactly who and what the Mainstream Media are and what they are doing.

Waking up in Hitler’s Bunker.

To quote Daniel Greenfield aka the Sultan Knish,

As we watch the news covering a story, what we are actually watching is the media making up a story and then telling that story incessantly and embedding it in every nook and cranny of their coverage. This blurring of the lines between the real and the fake is not happening thanks to the magic of technology, but the prosaic methods of complete insincerity.

The fake is being overlaid on the real, like men fighting on top of a board with a movie of a train passing by in the background to give the impression that they are fighting on top of it. Such cheap trickery defines our media environment where reporters barge into events and badger the participants into playing along with their movie. Or they just play the clip of actual events and frame them so that everyone hears their version of what is going on.

SWalker on September 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

here’s one of the good ones…..

https://twitter.com/MisfitPolitics/statuses/242730304261988352

PappyD61 on September 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

OT- Actor Michael Clarke Duncan dead at age 54.

RIP.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Breitbart has come back…as Clint Eastwood.

Wow, one of my first heartthrobs as a youngun was Clint Eastwood as Rowdy Yates. He has never disappointed since.

onlineanalyst on September 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The harsh, conventional wisdom about Eastwood’s decidedly unconventional approach to the convention is that it was the ramblings of a senile old man.

It was actually pretty brilliant if you ask me. If the DNC had done a similar skit with say Sean Penn talking with an empty chair George Bush he would have gotten a special Oscar.

As it was, the media ran with a focused buzz-word. I must have heard 8-10 liberal news heads and pundits use the same exact word, “Bizarre”. So, a liberal troll comes along and responds, “Hm, do you think maybe it’s becasue they thought it was “bizarre”? I say, “No, they’re just scared shitless for Nov and not even trying to mask the concerted effort to pump up President Obama and take a swing at anything having to do with the GOP candidates.

If I see one more promo for the CNN Obama Docu-brownnosery, I’m sure I’ll puke.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Heh. Going down with the ship.

http://twitter.com/lembas_n_coffee/status/242751540560023552/photo/1

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

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

let’s ask ourselves why did Eastwood get so much attention?

1. it was very unusual for a convention (man bites dog)

2. It a fake world the bravest thing that any of us can do is tell the truth. (man bites dog)

eastwood told truths that senior pols can not tell. Like all leftist I’m sure you believe in fake but accurate, truthiness and post-normal science…and all the PC/hip beliefs that ‘right-thinking’ people hold.

but some of us think you are deluded…and Clint got under your skin

r keller on September 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Talent hits a target others can’t hit. Genius hits a target many can’t even see.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I have little doubt he will be equally sharp promoting Trouble With the Curve in the next few weeks

You betcha! The Cost Curve in Obamacare goes up and up and up according to the latest CBO analysis.

MaggiePoo on September 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Most people missed them. Eastwood was the big draw…

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

You are more dense than previously thought. Those “most people” were probably more interested in Clint Eastwood than in Mitt Romney. That is the whole point you miss. A lot of those “most people” are not political elitists and Eastwood eviscerated Obutthead Empty Chair so effectively in their eyes that, while they may not vote for Romney, they certainly will stay home rather than vote for Obutthead.

Now go back to your mother’s basement, close the door, and think about how totally out of touch you are with most people.

NOMOBO on September 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

With the stakes as high as they are, you want every speech to be letter perfect,convincing,and move the needle.I felt the same way before Palin’s speech,last convention.I needn’t have worried then, and we shouldn’t worry now. I was puzzled when he began, but by the end I was standing and cheering.And bonus points: The more the left rags on Clint, the more people will check out what they missed, the more his message spreads to a wider audience..i.e. the empty chair day!

SMACKRUNNER on September 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

how wrong did the media get Clint

If they refer to it as a ‘speech’…

faraway on September 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM

OT
Princess Sitting Bullshat channeled Hillary’s “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.” moment by saying at a campaign rally: “you probably won’t see me folding laundry.” on Saturday. It was a swipe at Scott Brown, who was shown in an ad featuring his wife and daughters and showing him doing chores like folding laundry.

And to double down on stupid, John Walsh, the Chairman of the MA Democratic Party said in a breakfast event this morning:“We’ve also experienced Scott Brown,” Walsh told the delegates. “We’ve got to say a few good things about him: He handsome, right? He’s still got the coat. He’s still got the truck. He’s a regular guy. I mean, he spent a couple million dollars folding towels on TV to prove he’s an honorary girl. We appreciate that.” He shatfacedly apologized after a few hours.

Scott Brown’s campaign did mot let that slide and released this statement:“It seems Professor Warren and her spokesman can’t decide if they are just too good to fold laundry, or if household chores are suitable only for women. Professor Warren should apologize for her own elitist remark, and denounce her spokesman’s insulting comments suggesting folding laundry is a ‘girl’s’ job,” said Angela Davis, the chairwoman of the Brown for Women coalition.

bayview on September 3, 2012 at 6:48 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

Oh so they are as brainwashed as you. Thanks for admitting it.

Wow you really are pathetic. Not an original thought in that empty little head. Stay on the plantation buddy. Embarrassing.

CW on September 3, 2012 at 6:29 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.

You are more dense than previously thought. Those “most people” were probably more interested in Clint Eastwood than in Mitt Romney. That is the whole point you miss. A lot of those “most people” are not political elitists and Eastwood eviscerated Obutthead Empty Chair so effectively in their eyes that, while they may not vote for Romney, they certainly will stay home rather than vote for Obutthead.

Now go back to your mother’s basement, close the door, and think about how totally out of touch you are with most people.

NOMOBO on September 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Here is where the denseness lies: Clint is not running for president. When he steals the spotlight, it hurts Romney.

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

Talent hits a target others can’t hit. Genius hits a target many can’t even see.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

See what you freaking liberals did? You’re making me praise an excellent quote put up by Vordaj.

Awesome Schopenhauer (sp?) quote.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Here is where the denseness lies: Clint is not running for president. When he steals the spotlight, it hurts Romney.

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

Considering you guys have been whoring out George Clooney for four years, that’s quite a ironic remark.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

late to this party…but I compare Clint’s “talk” to the final episode of the Sopranos. It took days for many people to “get it” and then they realized that it was a masterpiece.

better yet, Clint didn’t really promote Romney at all…in fact his message was simply that Obama must go.

teejk on September 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I smell fear.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

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

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

The bad guys are back in town this week and the Chief Bad Guy will warn voters for the millionth time about the futility of returning to the failed Bush policies which he claims got us into this mess.

It will be interesting to see if the Romney campaign (to my surprise and consternation) continues to engage in political malpractice on this issue by failing to educate the public that what got us into this mess was the sub-prime mortgage fiasco which first caused the housing bubble and then the banking crisis when these improvident mortgages went into default and mortgage backed securities lost value and became toxic.

Sub-prime mortgages were the pet project of the Democrats – the chickens produced by the Carter/Clinton CRA finally came home to roost. Not only did Bush not push sub-prime mortgages, his administration warned of their dangers and tried to curtail the practice of Fannie and Freddie pushing them.

It’s really quite amazing to see the Democrats get away with this. They created the mess. The Republicans need to start shoving this fact down their loud mouths.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Considering you guys have been whoring out George Clooney for four years, that’s quite a ironic remark.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

But, unlike his movies, Clooney always gets second billing when he’s working with the President. Clint reveresed the order.

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

a, an, whatever

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Considering you guys have been whoring out George Clooney for four years, that’s quite a ironic remark.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Touché.

TxAnn56 on September 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I smell fear.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Yep. Starting to taste like victory. ; )

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

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

If I may, how old are you? Who was your first vote cast for in a Presidential election?

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

But, unlike his movies, Clooney always gets second billing when he’s working with the President. Clint reveresed the order.

Uh, okay, political point of order. The party that is bathed in Hollywood glitz and glitter asserts that they always leave top billing for the pol. (Important safety tip)

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

Don’t need your help and what will feel “viscerally” good, is watching you all crying like rats eating onions come the morning of Nov 7th.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

The fact that I’m still talking about Clint and not talking about Mitt further underscores what a direct hit the whole thing was.

urbane effetist on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Your guy won the primary. Now just please hush before you alienate even one more Conservative voter and make him lose.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Pic of the Day: Being There

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/pic-of-day-being-there.html

M2RB: James Taylor

Resist We Much on September 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

However, according to what I was told by the O’bamna Fluffers on CNN and MSNBC, 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.

urbane effetist on September 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Fixed again.

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Just don’t stand downwind of Charlotte, that smells like hippy. :-)

D-fusit on September 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Here is where the denseness lies: Clint is not running for president. When he steals the spotlight, it hurts Romney.

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

Since you are from a 95% democrat area that you describe as “funky”, which I would take to mean high crime, progressively controlled for years and crumbling, why in the world do you think those of us in the real world really care about what you think? Get your own pitiful world in order, then get back with us.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Exactly, Karl. As I posted the other day, every single stammer, stumble, and fumble we saw and even his messed up hair was thought through, scripted, rehearsed and performed flawlessly.

It was a set up, all the way, to get the critics to ratchet up his 12-minute performance to a level of controversy that he knew it would engender, with the side benefit, clearly planned, of the video of same going viral and for millions more to hear the substantive messages to which you referred.

How better for those messages to reach the independents, his intended audience, than for them to be delivered so subtly by a once and still beloved but now doddering old actor with messy hair, the role he so artfully played last Thursday?

Pure genius in all its glory from a genius director-actor who knows better than all the pundits and campaign “experts” how to move an audience.

Happy Empty Chair Day to all!

TXUS on September 3, 2012 at 7:05 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.

urbane effetist on September 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Which would explain the nearly 3,000 news articles about it worldwide in just the past 24 hours alone, and the over 78,000 news articles about it since Thursday night.

You’re funny when you’re scared.

Here it comes…

Z—–

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

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

If I may, how old are you? Who was your first vote cast for in a Presidential election?

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

You in hiding?

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

You just copy and paste into Word. It takes about a second.

urbane effetist on September 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Care to tell us why you even bothered to “count” the words in the first place?

Or are you afraid we’ll laugh at you even more than we are now?

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Have to leave, big storm heading in, I’ll check back UE.

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Here is where the denseness lies: Clint is not running for president. When he steals the spotlight, it hurts Romney.

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

OK, I guess you are just way too stupid to understand, so I will speak SLOWLY…..and… CLEARLY.

Clint..is…not…running..for..president. Your…boy..king…needs..ALL..of…the..votes…he..can..get, or..else…he…WILL…LOSE. Clint…tore..apart..your..boy..king..in..the..empty..chair. Clint..is..popular..with..a..great..many…DEMOCRATS..many..of..who..are..not…real…excited…about…elections. Clint’s..skit..will..make..them..STAY..HOME. And..your..boy..king..will..lose..because…he..will..not..have..enough…of…a…turnout…to…win.

NOMOBO on September 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM

OT: do you have to have spittle to appear on MSNBC?

faraway on September 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

And that’s just one more thing he doesn’t get. We wear the invective “bitter clinger” like a badge of honor. Everything to a liberal is an insult, but Conservatives sometimes just say, yeah, so what?

The chair was genius.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I am really getting concerned about Bill Clinton over shadowing the ONE…LOL.

d1carter on September 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The liberals are going nuts. They don’t know what to do now that everyone is mocking their ONE. The empty chair has gotta hurt. Clint defined Obama with a visual that is impossible to rebuke. The more they attack Clint, the more they admit that Obama is nothing more than empty promises. Otherwise, they’d just ignore it.

I don’t smell fear. I smell despair and dejection.

MrX on September 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Your guy won the primary. Now just please hush before you alienate even one more Conservative voter and make him lose.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

You overestimate my influence. My guy is going to be a great President. I want a rout. I’m sorry the subject matter is over your pin-head, but I’m tired of listening to the same old lies.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

If I may, how old are you? Who was your first vote cast for in a Presidential election?

Bmore on September 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

John Anderson.

Care to tell us why you even bothered to “count” the words in the first place?

Or are you afraid we’ll laugh at you even more than we are now?

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

it was a rhetorical device. Saying “1200 words” seemed more punchy than a vague “went on forever” sort of line.

NOMOBO on September 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I don’t like to get into name calling but you’re either stupid or arrogant or both. The point of the convention was not to trash Obama, ot was to make Romney seem presidential and likeable. As cute as Clint was, he pulled the convention away from its most important task. People who already dislike Obama liked what Clint did. On the other hand, people who find Romney heartless and robotic — not to mention cynical and flip-floppy — got nothing.

Since you are from a 95% democrat area that you describe as “funky”, which I would take to mean high crime, progressively controlled for years and crumbling, why in the world do you think those of us in the real world really care about what you think? Get your own pitiful world in order, then get back with us.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Or, moron, you could take it to mean “a vibrant, interesting community that is literally minutes from evry sort of world-class cultural establishment that you could imagine, walking distance to some excellent bars and five subway stops from the best baseball team (for the moment) in America.”

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

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

Broad brushed assertions lacking supporting links and evidence.

The last three paragraphs were the most strained of all.

Unsupported assertion.

Most people missed them.

Unsupported assertion.

If he hadn’t sucked all the air out of the room, maybe people would be talking about Romney’s old friends.

Unsupported assertion and speculation.

You’re supporting my point — Clint’s bizarro act was amusing but counterproductive.

Unsupported assertion and speculation.

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

No comment.

No substance.

All opinion.

But then what else would one expect from a Dem, Green Party, or Socialist Workers Party troll.

farsighted on September 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I don’t smell fear. I smell despair and dejection.

MrX on September 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

If they were simply capable of losing and feeling sad like, “Oh, we lost this one” it might be more depair and rejection. But they are most dangerous when they feel like they’re losing even a small amount of their power. If the GOP and Conservatives took the reins of this economy and turned it around like we all know they can do, it would ruin the liberals for a generation.

I … smell … fear.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

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

..get off my lawn.

The War Planner on September 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Karl, as for me, you have delivered the definitive critique of Clint’s performance. Well done!

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.

The fact that Eastwood’s performance was not loaded into a teleprompter does not mean it was unplanned.

Eastwood then introduces the dramatic device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit.

It’s the device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit, that’s making lefties’ heads explode… because they know, or if they don’t yet know it, they suspect it is true. More importantly to them, they know it is where they are most politically vulnerable.

petefrt on September 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

You overestimate my influence. My guy is going to be a great President. I want a rout. I’m sorry the subject matter is over your pin-head, but I’m tired of listening to the same old lies.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You pathetic shill. I feel so sad for you. You don’t even understand the damage you do.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You pathetic shill. I feel so sad for you. You don’t even understand the damage you do. hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

What damage? To your ego. Suck it up.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I admit when he first started I was dismayed more that he was perhaps “not up to it”, but as soon as he started on critiquing I knew he was giving a performance and a darned good one. There are probably only a handful of people who could do what he did and good on him for giving up a bit of “goodwill” for it. Even more so gratifying is that he probably doesn’t care and is enjoying the idiocy.

Thank you, sir.

kim roy on September 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

It’s the device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit, that’s making lefties’ heads explode… because they know, or if they don’t yet know it, they suspect it is true. More importantly to them, they know it is where they are most politically vulnerable.

petefrt on September 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Exactly, and when they see this “chair” photo, the best of them all, their heads, literally, will explode.

TXUS on September 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I don’t like to get into name calling but …

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

I could literally spend all evening cut and pasting names you have called people. Lets start with this very thread where you called us bitter-clingers. Too bad it’s only liberals that get butt hurt over names.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Or, moron, you could take it to mean “a vibrant, interesting community that is literally minutes from evry sort of world-class cultural establishment that you could imagine, walking distance to some excellent bars and five subway stops from the best baseball team (for the moment) in America.”

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

Backing off, a little. Some of my best friends live in the suburbs.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Loved Clint . . . he’ll always be #1 in my eyes.

Conservchik on September 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

What damage? To your ego. Suck it up.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

My ego? What in God’s good name are you even talking about? Most folks here know you’re a pathetic shill that does more harm to the R2 campaign than good. How about you just take a break, be quiet, and we’ll get Mitt and Paul over the finish line for you. Really, before you do more damage with the voters on our side, just let it go.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Or, moron, you could take it to mean “a vibrant, interesting community that is literally minutes from evry sort of world-class cultural establishment that you could imagine, walking distance to some excellent bars and five subway stops from the best baseball team (for the moment) in America.”

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

Oh, did we hurt someone’s feelings? Funny coming from someone who styles itself an elitist. I’ve been in some of those areas close to those kinds of attractions. They don’t build them in the best areas of town, do they?

Have a nice life in your soulless suburb.

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

Funny that, you berate me for making assumptions about the kind of place you live, then turn around and make disparaging remarks about where you think that I live. Funny that, I don’t live in a suburb or a tight-packed subdivision.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:37 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 between now and November 6 (and probably for a long, long time afterwards) when people see an empty chair, they are going to remember what Eastwood said.

Sorry to have to enlighten you as this is something you’ve been studiously avoiding, but devastating because Eastwood is the first to do what many others should be doing – criticizing a failed presidency. If you eunuchs would have been doing what should have been done – keeping your politician’s feet to the fire, then this wouldn’t be a big deal.

But you didn’t and it is and you fools own it.

kim roy on September 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

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

You wouldn’t be here, on this blog, sniping and spinning away, if you weren’t reaching the certitude that Obama is going to lose, and along with him the Democrats.

Your spiteful and petty posturing and pretense is confirmation of the first order that yours is a purely defensive position.

You betray yourself with every single post.

Try to scrape together whatever remnants of dignity you still possess, and accept the rapidly approaching defeat of your preferred ideology like a man.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

So I’m thinkin this chair thing has legs…

eyesky on September 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

My ego? What in God’s good name are you even talking about?

You stupidly accused me of being a shill (for Romney) in response to my post criticizing Romney. You have the ego of someone who rants before he thinks. It’s fragile.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I don’t offer many, but that is a thread winning comment.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Thank you.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:49 PM

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

Yeah, and don’t forget those that didn’t watch, but heard the ensuing rending of garments and asked a coworker, friend, family member, etc, what the heck the wailing was about. Then they watched it after having had an earful of commentary.

Yes. Oh so very very insignificant. All those people that wouldn’t have a clue now heard “sometimes you have to let them go if they’re not doing the job”. Sane, plain spoken words.

Devastating.

kim roy on September 3, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Right, and you can’t even remember what you comment about. Tell it to someone else.

If I wasn’t completely convinced you were a misguided Romney zealot, I’d swear you were working for the other side.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 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

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

Like the 95 percent of democrats in Weiner boy’s district did. You’re not a very bright elitist, are you?

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Or, moron, you could take it to mean “a vibrant, interesting community that is literally minutes from evry sort of world-class cultural establishment that you could imagine, walking distance to some excellent bars and five subway stops from the best baseball team (for the moment) in America.”

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

Project much?

Count to 10 on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I could literally spend all evening cut and pasting names you have called people. Lets start with this very thread where you called us bitter-clingers. Too bad it’s only liberals that get butt hurt over names.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You could never come close to the names I’ve been called. Either in quantity or vitriol.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:37 PM

You’ll note that I backed off. People like to live where they like to live.

On the other hand, dismissing my neighborhood as you did suggests that you are equally thoughtless.

coming from someone who styles itself an elitist

I would change the name if I could. Apparently, no one gets the joke. I am certain that I have some stereotypically “elitist” tendencies, but I am far from, say, a Romney-type elitist socialite. More Homer Simpson than Daddy Warbucks.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

So I’m thinkin this chair thing has legs…

eyesky on September 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

hahahahahahaha

faraway on September 3, 2012 at 7:51 PM

You wouldn’t be here, on this blog, sniping and spinning away, if you weren’t reaching the certitude that Obama is going to lose, and along with him the Democrats.

Your spiteful and petty posturing and pretense is confirmation of the first order that yours is a purely defensive position.

You betray yourself with every single post.

Try to scrape together whatever remnants of dignity you still possess, and accept the rapidly approaching defeat of your preferred ideology like a man.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Your false bravado is revealing. You’re going to have a tough four years,

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

See what you freaking liberals did? You’re making me praise an excellent quote put up by Vordaj.

Awesome Schopenhauer (sp?) quote.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will. (Author Schopenhauer)

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 7:54 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 just typed “Vagina Diary” into Bing and got 2,170,000 results. Just sayin.

Night Owl on September 3, 2012 at 7:54 PM

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Projection and mirroring. That’s all you’ve left.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Your false bravado is revealing. You’re going to have a tough four years,

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Without Obama in office? Maybe Limbaugh and Levin. Most of us have other targets than just Obama.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

You’re going to have a tough four years,

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

If President Punk gets reelected (unlikely), EVERYONE will have a tough four years, if not longer.

kenny on September 3, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Your false bravado is revealing. You’re going to have a tough four years,

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

No, if your guy gets re-elected, the USA is going to have a tough 4 years and beyond. The country will not be the prosperous, free and liberty-blessed country as it was founded. That is just the sad fact.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Projection and mirroring. That’s all you’ve left.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 7:54 PM

That’s not true. Stamping feet will always be there.

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

“Make my day!”: “Pump Up the Jam”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI

onlineanalyst on September 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM

No, if your guy gets re-elected, the USA is going to have a tough 4 years and beyond. The country will not be the prosperous, free and liberty-blessed country as it was founded. That is just the sad fact.

AZfederalist on September 3, 2012 at 7:58 PM

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

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You could never come close to the names I’ve been called. Either in quantity or vitriol.

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

I would change the name if I could. Apparently, no one gets the joke. I am certain that I have some stereotypically “elitist” tendencies, but I am far from, say, a Romney-type elitist socialite.

Do you not see the erstwhile “political” elitism by your own guy, turned into social status elitism he took the Oval Office? He, lives, in, a, bubble!

And your digs on Romney, “Daddy Warbucks” are just too cliche to even respond to.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:03 PM

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I was just thinking that next we’ll all be treated to a progressive meltdown par excellence with the capstone being UE shouting ‘Nuh uh!’ and pitching himself down on the floor.

Aww…Bless his pointy little head.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I would change the name if I could. Apparently, no one gets the joke. I am certain that I have some stereotypically “elitist” tendencies, but I am far from, say, a Romney-type elitist socialite. More Homer Simpson than Daddy Warbucks.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Instead of spewing this drivel, actually look into Romney’s past. He’s helped more people than you could in ten lifetimes. I don’t just mean monetarily. As for your boy, Odufus, the help he’s given his bundlers with our money doesn’t count.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

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

Yes. I’ll bet you would.

thatsafactjack on September 3, 2012 at 8:06 PM

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Teach a man to fish.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Instead of spewing this drivel, actually look into Romney’s past. He’s helped more people than you could in ten lifetimes. I don’t just mean monetarily. As for your boy, Odufus, the help he’s given his bundlers with our money doesn’t count.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Well OK, Romney has done a lot of loving things for a lot of people over the many years, everyone should concede that, but just think of how much tough love Obama has given to his brother in Kenya. Not even calling him or sending him $10 for his birthday. Now you don’t really think that giving his own brother such a hard lesson against any form of dependency didn’t hurt Obama’s heart very deeply, do you?

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Right, and you can’t even remember what you comment about. Tell it to someone else.

If I wasn’t completely convinced you were a misguided Romney zealot, I’d swear you were working for the other side.

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Should I tell it to someone who can think straight? If I’m a Romney shill and zealot why would I be offering this criticism of his campaign? It’s noteworthy that you took it as an opportunity to attack me personally. Looks to me like you were waiting for the opportunity. Obviously I struck a nerve with my criticisms of your candidate.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Well OK, Romney has done a lot of loving things for a lot of people over the many years, everyone should concede that, but just think of how much tough love Obama has given to his brother in Kenya. Not even calling him or sending him $10 for his birthday. Now you don’t really think that giving his own brother such a hard lesson against any form of dependency didn’t hurt Obama’s heart very deeply, do you?

VorDaj on September 3, 2012 at 8:10 PM

An empty chair has no heart, just a squeaky wheel held on by a loose nut.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:20 PM

The fact that between now and November 6 (and probably for a long, long time afterwards) when people see an empty chair, they are going to remember what Eastwood said.

… and you fools own it.

kim roy on September 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Rumpled haired Clint, straight from the Hollywood hair-stylist, has branded Teh Dear Leader as an empty chair, as permanently as a rancher brands his cattle. The icon for this petty poser POTUS from now on is not just an empty suit, but an empty chair. POTUS, not just TOTUS, but AWOL or MIA.

petefrt on September 3, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Should I tell it to someone who can think straight?

Coming from a one track shill who doesn’t even remember how he insulted other Conservatives, funny.

If I’m a Romney shill and zealot

There’s no “if” there.

why would I be offering this criticism of his campaign?

It was actually a critique of Bush. Your rationalization for any downside to Mitt’s behavior.

It’s noteworthy that you took it as an opportunity to attack me personally.

Again, ironic from the guy who couldn’t remember he called Rich Santorum “Fr0thy”

Looks to me like you were waiting for the opportunity. Obviously I struck a nerve with my criticisms of your candidate.

Basilsbest on September 3, 2012 at 8:13 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

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

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

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

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

Nuts to that. This nation didn’t deserve what this President has done.

Gingotts on September 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Instead of spewing this drivel, actually look into Romney’s past. He’s helped more people than you could in ten lifetimes. I don’t just mean monetarily. As for your boy, Odufus, the help he’s given his bundlers with our money doesn’t count.

msupertas on September 3, 2012 at 8:04 PM

that’s the problem with Romney. Nice guy in person, but doesn’t gove a rat’s a** about you if the numbers say the executive bonuses will be bigger if your job is sent to Singapore.

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.

I would change the name if I could. Apparently, no one gets the joke. I am certain that I have some stereotypically “elitist” tendencies, but I am far from, say, a Romney-type elitist socialite.

Do you not see the erstwhile “political” elitism by your own guy, turned into social status elitism he took the Oval Office? He, lives, in, a, bubble!

And your digs on Romney, “Daddy Warbucks” are just too cliche to even respond to.

urban elitist on September 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM

hawkdriver on September 3, 2012 at 8:03 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

Comment pages: 1 2 3