BTW, prior to Eastwood’s, uh, performance - the RNC was using the phrase “…surprise guest that was going to embarrass President Obama …”
Can anyone find a cite for who actually said that? Just wondering if they still have their job, or if they have claimed it was a mis-quote, out of context.
Neither are lawyers now, it’s true.
I read this thread just to see if anyone else had this suspicion. If Eastwood’s goal were to hurt Romney without quite being obvious, I think this might have been the exact speech he would give. The idea does seem far-fetched, but “truth is stranger than fiction” and I certainly wonder.
What, you kidding? It was a huge success, improv theater (Republicans are totally about the improv…). “Heartfelt” “Spontaneous”. (Republicans are totally about spontaneity, that part which isn’t taken up by being about improv.)
It is just not me, but on Slate they noticed that what took place can not be spinned much in favor of Romney and the republicans, the thing is that as many mentioned before conventions are indeed supposed to be propaganda and they are in reality set to have no surprises and demonstrate organization and discipline, in other words to generate confidence among the American viewers and voters.
What took place (and I include the booing episode against the Puerto Rican delegate, that was not racist, but showed the divisions that are in the party) was a demonstration of a lack of control and amateurism that does stick to Romney when he is still insisting that he enjoyed what Eastwood did. And based on what the Romney campaign is saying, putting all the blame on Eastwood, shows to me that the Romney campaign is not very competent on controlling the message when it was the most important thing to do at the time.
I’m usually not one for stars aligning, but this convention was a flop in major league proportions for the GOP. It all started with Isaac, delaying the start and reminding everyone of the disaster of the GOP Presidency in 2005. Mother nature was just the start of the knives coming out for Romney. Then the speeches from the likes of Rubio and particularly Christie that felt like they’ve already thrown in the towel and are thinking about 2016. And the worst of course the warm up to the candidate, speaking to an invisible man but suggesting to everyone what Romney should do to himself. What to do? Pundits were generous in thinking Mitt was going to get a modest bounce, it appears now even that has evaporated before the last bit of bunting gets packed away
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-pollbre87u1cj-20120831,0,4956514.story
My mistake; I remembered him getting the blame for an election result gone awry and conflated it with 2008.
Back on the main topic, I’m hoping Obama opens his speech next week with “Has anybody seen my chair?”
God is still punishing them for Clarence Thomas.
That would be funny, but also strike that cringe nerve for picking on a senior citizen. NOW, if he asked that and Clint brought him a chair on stage and redeemed himself (Clint = himself)… THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
And God knows there was a pube on that can of Coke.
That would be too much awesome, like the Trump smackdown at the correspondent’s dinner.
BTW at the time the reaction of some of the Right Wing was asinine. You make an ad cheering on the recovery of Chrysler, and you get pounced upon? Really? Because you can say nothing except this is the worstest most horriblest time we’ve ever lived?
But yeah, he has always been more known as a Republitarian of the ornery school, not a “movement conservative” as we know them today. He’s unlikely to play a mole, unless he’s the greatest of them all.
I keep going back and forth on this, maybe because the freakin’ speech was so disjointed it seemed like he was thinking twice about who he was backing.
You’re probably right. But thinking about the movie that he has coming out, if he were to show up at the DNC convention and redeem himself with a talk about social security, medicare and dignity for seniors. That would make serious headlines along with getting huge publicity for his movie and it would leave the Romney camp sputtering because if Romney’s best are outwitted by an actor, what chance would they stand against terrorists.
There was a passing reference to this earlier, but I think it deserves way more attention than that.
Let me start with the headline:
The use of Clint Eastwood in a starring role at the RNC kills all future Republican criticism of the use of “Hollywood liberals” by the Democrats.
The hatred of the liberal media and anti-American values Hollywood has been a big seller for conservatives. It works among a large segment of their base. Yet from now through November 6 any time “Hollywood liberal” gets tossed out, it can be met with, “Yeah, but, Clint Eastwood.”
The RNC must have been utterly certain that Eastwood’s special surprise mystery guest American icon status would have trumped all the flack they’d get about their hypocrisy over the next two months. Why else would you even think of throwing away a surefire crowd-pleaser?
Now it’s far worse. They’ll still get hit with “Yeah, but, Clint Eastwood” except that it will be “Yeah, but, Clint Eastwood” [snicker, snicker, guffaw].
I once said something to the effect that you’d see actual assassinations before the Republicans would allow a floor fight to ruin their infomercial. (That’s hyperbole, for the humor-impaired.) Yet they gave a prime-time slot to an unvetted performance by a non-politician. That can’t have happened. I’d have believed UFOs landing on the convention floor before I considered that a possibility.
This gives the campaign some real excitement for the first time all year. I’m dying to see what the public reaction turns out to be when the first Hollywood liberal speaks at an Obama rally. Nobody can predict that. We’re in uncharted waters. Man, we live in interesting times.
“May you live in interesting times” is a curse! We did not need more reminders of this - we’ve had plenty of reminders. As to the speech, I think the Romney campaign did not vet this the way they should have, and Eastwood mistakenly thought he could ad lib at that level. They screwed up. You don’t need a conspiracy theory every time someone screws up.
Charlton Heston should have done that, but yes, you’re right - this kills it.
Unless Eastwood really *does *turn out to have been a sleeper agent.
I don’t know much about Clint Eastwood but I remember once reading an article or interview with him and he came across as much more counter-culture than you would expect. There was a lot of talk about his interest in jazz & black culture, and that he never really associated with John Wayne types. So maybe there is a grain of truth to that.
Yes, because a conservative could never like jazz music. :rolleyes:
Clint Eastwood is a libertarian. That’s why he’s never been particularly active in Republican politics. Here’s there now because the Obama administration is the great uniter of the right.
who gives a sh1t. What’s next? Lil John voting for Obama? Richard Simmons voting for Paul?