From a comfy chair of an outsider: the hurricane of opinions that overflows the existing media channels is dwarfing the main issue on the agenda (I mean of course the election campaign which, accidentally, was the main reason for the Eastwood brouhaha).
Of course, the reaction from the Democrats-leaning press was entirely predictable: from playing out to the hilt the fact that Eastwood's performance may have overshadowed the "coronation" speech by Romney that followed this performance to his "off-color references" (such prudery from people who usually deplore prudery of Republicans!). It must be said that some responses, politically charged or not, were quite funny, like that one:
And, of course, another good response by Team Obama deserves a mention too:
Of course, the less official responses of the left-leaning Obama's supporters and other detractors (yes, some Republicans were unhappy too) were much less kind. From "sad and pathetic" via "Clint train wreck" to something that I would consider a heartfelt endorsement:
Comedian Roseanne Barr put it simply: "clint eastwood is CRAY" -- a slang reference to being crazy.Coming from inimitable Roseanne, whose cooking is done on some other planet for too long, this is a badge of honor even a man of "clint eastwood"* caliber could be (moderately) proud of.
The somewhat lonely voice of Fox News ("Legendary Hollywood tough guy Clint Eastwood brought down the house..") practically drowns in the deluge of indignant and derogatory shrieks from the opposite side and, partly, from the various Republican wheelers and dealers.
So I just had to watch the recording of that controversial performance. What can I say? First of all, re "sad and pathetic": I wish for the person who said this - and for myself, accidentally - to be as sad and pathetic at 82 as Clint is. Yes, Clint knew better days and, cinematically speaking, he gave better performances in his life. However, when he chooses to shoot, he shoots straight indeed.
All in all, I would say, every political campaign, no matter who you carry your political torch for, could do with more performances like this one, from "sad and pathetic" old men who, nevertheless, still carry a few bullets in their guns - and know how to use them.
It may get interesting yet. It will certainly get more heated.
(*) The abhorrence of capital letters is another quirk in the bottomless arsenal of (mainly stupid) quirks Roseanne unleashed on the world. Yeah, Roseanne's enchilada could definitely do with a few more tacos...
19 comments:
Hadn't heard of this until now but then I try to avoid the presidential elections as much as I can.
As you know, I'm so left wing that I'm in danger of falling off the edge of the spectrum. That said, to give the awld geezer due credit, Eastwood's performance was a damn sight more interesting than those of his would-be commander-in-chief, or the latter's pipsqueek sidekick. Talking of the wannabe veep, Master Ryan's speech contrasted his boss's predilection for elevator music with his own iThingy playlists, which we are told "start with AC/DC and end with Zeppelin". Well, I guess that's the vote of vacuous Middleamerica sewn up.
I also watched the clip, as millions who also did not watch the convention will now, due to the Dem media's big whoop, so I (as they) missed the context the libtards are so exercised about.
I did not see an old man struggling to remember what he wanted to say but an actor playing the role of an old man struggling, etc.
He was thus able to get in some zingers that would have only sounded mean if he'd done a teleprompted speech. For instance, calling Biden "the intellect of the Democrat party." And saying he hadn't cried so much since he heard 23 million Americans were unemployed. But my favorite was his line about politicians being "our employees" who have to be let go when they don't do the job.
I'm especially glad the thin-skinned narcissist in the WH felt compelled to Tweet a reply. Heh. As for Mittens, I have yet to watch his speech, though my anti-Obumbles mother-in-law assures me it was tough. "I was afraid he didn't have any balls," she said, almost blushing at her own choice of words.
BTW, for what it's worth (and TIME is not my idea of journalism) the WH apparently is already backing away from support of Israel:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bn535km
If Roseanne Barr hates it you can be assured that it is the best in the world.
Saw Clint Eastwood's performance and while it was not the greatest of his performances, it was humorous and delightful.
The question I see is "what did Romney give up" for Clint Eastwood. The 10pm hour is when the main networks pick up coverage of the convention. This is the time of maximum exposure. There is usually a full production slick video bio of the candidate before he gives his speech. The bio video was done before the 10pm hour. The Romney campaign effectively substituted the Bio for the Clint routine in its prime time coverage. I'm not sure it was a good trade off.
I am curious to see what the bounce will be in the polls.
The Ryan candidacy has actually put Wisconsin into play, but has not seemed to help elsewhere. Romney and Obama are virtually tied in Florida. Florida is a must win state for Romney. With the convention being held in Tampa, the Ryan pick and the convention might help Romney a lot, even if the national bounce is minimal. We will know a lot more in a few days when the polls come out for the convention time period.
Stan
The truth is the so-called "main networks" have lost massive numbers of viewers in recent years to the Internet. They simply don't have the influence they once did, except with news junkies like some of us. And not many even watched the convention or, I expect, will watch the DNC one, either. Plus a tie for Romney is as good as a win.
Yep. All true.
Almost like I and the Olympics ;-)
"Eastwood's performance was a damn sight more interesting..."
Precisely the point I was trying to make. Instead of listening to self-serving pols, gimme old Clint anytime.
As for you falling of the edge, only bicycles come to mind.
I don't even care if there was some rambling due to age. It was cool. It was different and it's good that it has happened.
Frankly, I would have applauded if the other side could come up with something similar. Of course, one should remember that the GOP "apparatchiks" were not involved, so they can't write it up as their achievement. Grass root effect indeed.
"Plus a tie for Romney is as good as a win."
I don't understand this. Are you talking about a 269-269 electoral vote tie?
Stan
You were talking about the polls, not the electoral votes. When the challenger is tied in the polls with the incumbent, that's as good as a win for the challenger.
Indeed, I rather doubt the GOP managers had any idea what Eastwood would do. They were just glad to have him. But they might not have sanctioned dubbing all pols "our employees."
Clint was suppose to speak for 5 minutes, he went on for 12. In today's highly scripted and edited Media culture, that is a primary sin. Did not and have not yet heard what he said, so I am not not going to comment on it, except that most folks, Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to believe that Clint's performance was a minus.
Maybe showing emotion or giving a speech that has not been programed and tested to the last detail is considered a bad thing.
Sure, the pols usually forget who they are (or who they are supposed to be) very quick.
He definitely extended the envelope as far as usual boring fodder politicians usually produce is concerned.
"...most folks, Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to believe that Clint's performance was a minus."
Ha ha. You've been watching MSNBC again.
They made no allowances for age and of course they had an agenda. When you mentioned Barr calling him cray, that said it all.
Yep.
Post a Comment