The Republican National Convention was its usual clot of cloying, decrepit and tiresome swill. More money for the rich, less money for the poor, starving and homeless. More money for the overly bloated military-industrial complex (even Ron Paul knows this is bad), less money for college students and the elderly. It was the often repeated mantra of liberty and justice for all… who can afford it. Everyone else is SOL.
There was some buzz about the ‘surprise’ guest speaker, but I paid it little attention. I assumed that it would be yet another reactionary white male mired in weltschmerz or a carefully-crafted minority touting RNC propaganda as a cure-all for our freedom. So it was a great shock to me when the surprise guest speaker was The Man With No Name (instead of Rush Limbaugh, The Man With No Waistline).
Clint Eastwood
His frazzled appearance was at odds with the typically polished demeanor we are used to seeing wrapped about a Hollywood legend. He seemed a bit disoriented and confused, every inch the doddering old man in the park or drunken uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. He seemed to come out of himself, though, and, without the teleprompter crutch most politicians cling to, Clint began to talk.
It was the most bewildering, disturbing and overtly insulting political speech I have seen in years.
How Mr. Eastwood, a world-class womanizer, was selected to speak at a Republican convention that had been endlessly preaching family values is beyond me. It would have been difficult to find someone less suited to talk about such things. His fame is entirely base upon playing characters who murder for money, revenge or fun. His twisted portrayal of manliness as entrenched in stone-age hatreds and violence is a standard which civilized society has worked tirelessly to leave behind. There is no redeeming value in his work, unless it is as a horrifying warning against that type of behavior.
6 Comments
If he did this against Romney at the DNC, you would say he is wise. THE DNC will be all about abortion and Romney’s taxes. Good luck with that while 13 million people are out of work. BTW, at least Eastwood didn’t need a teleprompter….
“How Mr. Eastwood, a world-class womanizer, was selected to speak at a
Republican convention that had been endlessly preaching family values is
beyond me” I suppose by that logic it is fitting then that BJ Clinton will be speaking at the DNC and introducing BO…
Too bad that ANP is now letting far left-wing extremists post hate-filled screeds here. I could try to count Lucy Raed’s lies and misrepresentations, but I don’t have the time to pull out my scientific calculator. She starts off with the usual Mother Jones/The Nation/MSNBC lie of “More money for the rich, less money for the poor,” and it goes downhill from there. She probably doesn’t get that once Obama bankrupts the country we’ll ALL be poor. He’s already set on destroying the upper class and in so doing will create even more unemployment among the poor and middle-classes. Obama and the Federal Reserve will also see to it that we have massive inflation. Already the prices of food and oil are higher than ever, hurting the poor most of all.
As for her attack on Clint Eastwood. Certainly he’s no paragon of morality, but most Democrat celebs are no better, so those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. At least we don’t have a President who got impeached for lying under oath and losing his law license as a result. But that’s who the Dems want to speak for their convention. Yeah, that’s real moral.
Eastwood did ramble and stammer and stutter, but still managed to make people laugh. For an 82-year old he did pretty well. At his worst he’s still a few dozen IQ points above Joe Biden.
But please, don’t give me the sanctimonious hypocrisy of demeaning the presidency. Not with all the hate thrown at George W. Bush and his administration for eight years, or every Republican that came before him. There is even a set of “I Hate…” readers that were on sale in bookstores. THAT is demeaning. To use the empty chair analogy on Obama is mild to what a lot of people really think about him. That was downright kind. The fact is people don’t like Obama NOT because of his skin color (if anything, his skin color is the only worthwhile thing about him — even many white people voted for him just because of his skin color). That claim is a left-wing lie. The reason is because he wants to change this country into an ultra-Left wing utopia. He wants to make the USA into some sort of Marxist state. He wants all abortion all the time — even the kind of abortion that includes babies who SURVIVED being aborted — and those who disagree can lose their jobs or go to prison. Yup, just like how the Soviets jailed dissidents. No freedom of speech or expression for anyone on the Right. That includes religious speech. Islam is okay because they were oppressed by the West, which makes them anti-colonial saints. Doesn’t matter that they want to bring Shari’a to the USA. He also overran Congress to act as a dictator to legalize a million illegal immigrants. Screw the Constitution and separation of powers. Obama will just write executive orders and place his puppets on the Supreme Court to approve of everything he does. THAT’s why people don’t like Obama. It’s his policies. But even the Right doesn’t show the scorn for him that the Left gave G. W. Bush. Obama even sends the military on an illegal war in Libya and the Left-wing doesn’t say a single word of complaint.
Raed also claims that Obama mopped up the floor against Republican in previous debates. Who has he debated? John McCain and Alan Keyes. I can’t think of any other Republican opponents he debated. Only two. I didn’t see him mop the floor against McCain in any debate. If anything McCain’s campaign mopped up McCain. He got the Repub nomination because he was a war hero who was tortured, but a good Republican he was not. Very inept. As for Alan Keyes, I don’t know if they really debated since it wasn’t a national election. David Axelrod and the Chicago Tribune played dirty and got the qualified Republican candidate out using disgustingly sleazy tricks. Then the Republicans had no challenger for Obama so brought in Keyes. A carpetbagger who didn’t even live there and never held office. Keyes never had a chance and I don’t know why he ran. But the claim that Obama is a skilled debater is a false one. I saw him give a speech at Saddleback Church where he spoke on abortion. He didn’t have the “pay grade” to give an honest answer. Obama already had a record that showed he supported infanticide. He is as extreme as one could get on the issue, but he lied in a church and acted like he really hadn’t made up his mind. I’m not sure it’s really a win in a debate if you tell lies, and that’s what he does. He lies so much he makes Bill Clinton look honest.
Elsewhere Raed brings in Rush Limbaugh although he was not there and has no connection to this. It’s like a Rush Limbaugh derangement syndrome, where the left-winger has to attack him even he’s not connect to the topic or issue. So she digs him then attacks him. You know why the Right doesn’t bring up Left-wing radio talk show hosts to attack? Because no one knows who they are! The radio commies have an audience of what, five listeners? That’s almost as much as MSNBC. I think if it wasn’t for conservative commentators using clips of MSNBC the network wouldn’t even exist! I might be a little facetious here, but it’s probably true!
Can’t wait for Lucy Raed to review the Democratic convention. She probably has candles set around the television so she can bow down and pray everytime Obama speaks. Maybe Obama will walk on water for the bussed-in crowd, who knows? If I see a single word of criticism out of Raed I’ll be shocked.
Well said Rick. I could not have said it better. Great job. A terrible article all around. Historically, factually inaccurate. Terrible article..
I enjoy a good Clint Eastwood film as much as the next guy, which makes his performance at the Republican National Convention all the more sad and pathetic. He’s at an age where the memory is not as sharp as it once was and the words don’t flow as easily. It was painful to watch.
That said, you have to wonder why the Republicans chose Eastwood to address their convention. Clearly the hoopla, hype and sense of mystery they created before the speech left everyone with the impression that, as Donald Trump might say, would be huge, HUGE!
Instead, Eastwood’s bizarre performance ended up up-staging Mitt Romney’s big night. You would think that they would have figured out beforehand what a train wreck this would be and would have done something to avert the disaster. In a way though it is emblematic of the Republican approach to governing, not well thought out and poorly executed.
I do not believe that Clint’s day at the convention was a train wreck or bizarre. The icon is 82-years old and reasonable people would take that into consideration when listening to his points. Any serious criticism of the mogul could be viewed as being discriminatory. I was taught to be kind to my elders.