Volumes have already been written about Clint Eastwood’s weird, rambling, incoherent speech at the Republican National Convention. It was really just kind of sad to watch and apparently had the Romney folks in full panic mode. But Jon Stewart loved it:
Sep 02 2012
Jon Stewart on Eastwood Speech
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
30 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Michael Heath
September 2, 2012 at 9:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Clint Eastwood’s speech was pitch perfect when it comes to the secular conservative response to Barack Obama. A make-believe hero taking on and then winning an argument with the imagined Barack Obama in the collective conservative psyche. As opposed to filling this speaking slot with an accomplished leader (do conservatives have any?) actually engaging with the actual Barack Obama and his actual record; where President Obama and his record are unrecognizable relative to the imagined Obama.
Bill Maher did make the excellent point that because Mr. Eastwood was funny, a not so easy accomplishment, he was not incoherent. I think the insinuation by Mr. Maher given his prelude, also contained in the linked clip, was that conservatism is now incoherent, where Eastwood competently played to the crowd.
I also think it’s wrong to merely look to Eastwood’s age in explaining his behavior. I think this condition is age coupled to how retirees are so different than past generations because of their inability to properly consider the wave of propaganda which hits their email Inbox, broadcast on Fox News, and their interactions with each other given this context.
democommie
September 2, 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath:
I doubt, very much, that Clint Eastwood’s mailbox contents are reviewed by Mr. Eastwood. He has people to do that for him, much like Mittmoroni and the other fairly well to do reptilicans who are only trying to get a fair shake from the IRS and their share of the dwindling pie (which unconscionable actions by the demoncrat party is making even smaller by givin’ a big ol’ wedge with a heapin’ scoop of welfare Haagen Daz to the idle layaboutblack-o-perps) of gummintincentive$’s for decent, honest, hardworkin’, KKKorporate KKKristians.
No need to thank me, I’m only too glad to offer some sort of explanation that makes sense–at least to the GOP.
I think that the reality is that Mr. Eastwood woke up one day and realized that he is part of the 1% and he’d damned well better start acting like it.
iangould
September 2, 2012 at 9:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What few people realise is that thorughout that exchange Invisible Obama had a crack-pipe in one hand while he was using the other to force a 14 year-old blond cheerleader to pleasure him orally.
Pierce R. Butler
September 2, 2012 at 9:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Poor Eastwood was just improvising as best he could, given an unexpected situation: he had asked Mitt’s minions to bring him Cher…
Michael Heath
September 2, 2012 at 9:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
democommie writes:
I would bet otherwise; that Clint Eastwood has several email addresses. Some of which he shares with close friends, confidants, and relatives which he administrates rather than his assistants. Where his assistants first read emails addressed to those other emails and then forward to one he administrates himself.
Given the rhetoric I’ve heard from him lately, I’m confident he’s getting some viral emails from his confidants and worse yet, believing some of them.
harold
September 2, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath –
I think it’s both. I think we all have to be very cautious about subtle cognitive issues as we get older. It seems that past 70, even in if academic intelligence remains high and productive, there is sometimes a need for awareness of a decline in self-critical thought.
I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood as an artist, but he’s also always been lacking in political judgment almost his entire life. He expresses sentiments which intensely at odds with authoritarian theocracy, yet can’t seem to understand that the Republicans don’t share his views, and that trend is decades old in his case.
He is moderately interesting in that, along with James Woods, he is a “conservative” entertainer, yet does not have some combination of history of extreme substance abuse, and/or output limited to B action movies/forgotten “eighties” vehicles/second rate country music/second rate heavy metal music. That is quite rare.
mrbongo
September 2, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I get the same schadenfreude out of this blog – Ed, the monotone aging and increasingly out of touch blogger, his 10 or crazypants regular commenters (demmocommie being the craziest, with chiroptera, heath and dingo jack running wingman).
Seriously, I mean how many years has it been guys? I blow in everyone fews month and Ed it posting the same shit, and you guys are stilling commenting away. Even James Hanley seems to have moved on.
Here’s a little secret – ‘you don’t need to come to this blog anymore’ – Ed’s crap has been on repeat for years now. Just peruse through some of the science blog and just hit refresh every morning – that ‘obscure jesus nut ducks into punch’ crap never evolves.
Michael Heath
September 2, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Harold responds to my post:
Which was the very conclusion I put forward to which you apparently rebut:
Modusoperandi
September 2, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought it was a great speech, reflecting the general libertarian disappointment in Obama.
The part I had trouble figuring out is why it took place at a Republican convention, as what he said, from Afghanistan to Gitmo, would apply doubly (or more) to them.
From there, I can come only to the conclusion that it was brilliant satire. Beyond Swift, beyond Twain, beyond Vonnegut and beyond Colbert; wit on such a level that all sides are cut by its edge (an edge so keen that no man, no one, realize that they are bleeding until the wife notices the family dog licking the wound at dinner and freaks the hell out. And also the roast will be too dry).
Philosophers will spend decades parsing and discussing it. Teachers and professors will illuminate and bore students with it. Soldiers and saints alike will carry a miniaturized copy of it in their pocket. Lexicographers will, if my spell-checker is any indicator, exist. Billions will witness it and be humbled.
slc1
September 2, 2012 at 11:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re bongo the dongo (although I suspect that his is about an inch hard) @ #7
Hey, fucktard mrbongo has shown up again with another dumping of puke. As a fairly regular commenter here, I greatly resent not being included with Heath, Dingojack, democommie and chiroptera as one of the crazypants commenters. And as for James Hanley, both he and his brother Scott occasionally show up here with a thoughtful and perceptive comment, unlike mrbongo who has never contributed anything substantive.
slc1
September 2, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Harold @ #6
Mr. Woods considers himself a libertarian these days. Interestingly enough, he and California Governor Jerry Brown are good buddies.
harold
September 2, 2012 at 12:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath –
In fact, the my original comment was intended to be agreeable.
The “rebut” interpretation suggests a thin skin and/or desire for other people to shut up and listen to you.
harold
September 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On the other hand, maybe I’m guilty of what I accuse. I retract this.
Anyway, no “rebuttal” of your original comment was intended.
democommie
September 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I sense a bit of a contest going on between Mr. Heath and Mr. Harold.
” between them. Only instead of going against each other (in which situation one of the other of them might be seriously hurt) I would suggest that they both, simultaneously attack Mr. Bongo’s logic and see which of them more quickly succeeds in demolishing it. We will be employing one of these (http://www.digitalmicroscope.com/solutions/vw9000/highspeed.php)so that we can watch it in slo-mo. :>)
democommie
September 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, it appears that a fair chunk of my last comment was left out. Suffice to say it was not needed, indeed, the comment itself was not NEEDED, but, what the hell.
Oh, I almost forgot. Dear Mr. Bongo, was this:
“I blow in everyone fews month”
supposed to read:
“I blow everyone.”?
harold
September 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There is something about this thread that irritates me –
Clint Eastwood making a jackass of himself at the Republican convention, that’s what irritates me.
At the end of the day, it was just another clumsy move by Romney.
Modern wingnuts mainly despise Eastwood, because of his work in the last 25 years.
Even the spaghetti western/Dirty Harry Eastwood wasn’t exactly a conservative icon, and wasn’t exactly making movies with a straightforward “family values” or “patriotic” message.
Chiroptera
September 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
moduoperandi, #9: From there, I can come only to the conclusion that it was brilliant satire.
Heh. I was thinking that myself. When I was reading other peoples’ descriptions about Eastwood’s performance (I haven’t actually watched it myself), then main thing I thought was, “This sounds more like Eastwood is criticizing the Republicans. Are they sure this wasn’t some sort of subversive satire on Eastwood’s part?”
It probably wasn’t, but I would wouldn’t bet more than a small sum of money on it.
harold
September 2, 2012 at 3:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Satire?
Nothing is impossible. I have (non-celebrity) friends in the entertainment industry. The reputation I have heard is that Eastwood is a good guy to work with. Things can go wrong with the brain at 82, but he supposedly does have a sense of humor.
However, he seems to project his own attributes onto the Republican party.
lcaution
September 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Roger Ebert has an interesting take on what happened to Eastwood:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/09/_what_exactly_happened_when.html#more
democommie
September 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Absent some proof of actions to the contrary, I’m going to assume that Clint Eastwood did what he did for reasons of his own. I have no fucking idea what those reasons might have been, but I can’t imagine he was coerced into making the appearance.
harold
September 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The internet has reminded me that Clint Eastwood supports gay marriage, opposes futile prolongation of life, and opposes the Afghanistan war.
Hell, half his ramblings were complaining about Obama not being liberal enough.
I see what happened. Clint had a “senior moment”. He must have thought he was at the Green Party convention, criticizing Obama for not being progressive enough.
Get some better assistants, Clint.
caseloweraz
September 2, 2012 at 4:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mrbongo asks, “Seriously, I mean how many years has it been guys?”
How many years has it been guys? I think zero is the best answer; there have always been some women commenting here.
As for the ungrammatical remainder of your comment, nonsense merits no response.
jesse
September 2, 2012 at 11:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought something about the routine seemed a bit familiar, and then I looked it up. Eastwood is actually doing a bit of an homage to an old Newhart routine called “driving instructor” which I think dates back to the 70s. So I could see him doing that, though it isn’t something a lot of people under 50 are necessarily going to recognize. I only did because I half-remembered it from reruns and such years back — and only because I cared enough to look it up. (And I watch way too much TV).
harold mentioned James Woods as a conservative — that is sort of surprising, given his appearance in Salvador, but hey, a lot changes in 25 years.
Eastwood is an interesting case, he’s more Libertarian-ish, I guess. I wonder how at home he feels with current Republicans given that Richard Nixon is counted as some kind of crazy Marxist now, with the EPA and all. And the politics of Eastwood movies have been a mixed bag.
As to motivation: I am sure the man was paid scale to be there. We all have to make a living.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
September 3, 2012 at 12:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy shit, they really ARE reptilian?
congaboy
September 3, 2012 at 12:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It was as if he was channeling Grampa Simpson
birgerjohansson
September 3, 2012 at 4:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“It was as if he was channeling Grampa Simpson”
EPA! EPA! EPA!
(Gets rolled up in carpet)
jesse
September 3, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Azkyroth — well, the GOP would say the same about SAG. :-)
stace
September 4, 2012 at 8:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Proof positive that sometimes you have something so important (to you) to say that coherence just flies out the window. I blow in everyone indeed.
jamesborden
September 9, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
AMERICAN PATRIOTS’ MOVEMENT OF AMERICA
National Headquarters: Hilo, Hawaii
I support Clint Eastwood for he was right on the money and his speech was very funny.
Furthermore:
The Kenyan born Muslim is of the antichrist and anyone who has been given spiritual sight by the Holy Spirit can easily see evil in Obama and his wife.
Only people who have been blessed with spiritual sight of recognizing evil will know what I’m talking about – the other people who are spiritually blinded have no clue and will criticize me.
Michael Heath
September 9, 2012 at 9:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jamesborden writes:
Fail; that’s a false restriction of alternatives. Another explanation for your publishing absurd assertions about President Obama and First Lady Obama is that you’re a delusional racist idiot who thinks so incoherently you can’t imagine how easy it is for sane people to see through your bullshit.