Patterico's Pontifications

9/2/2012

Karl on the Eastwood Bit

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:52 pm

Our old friend Karl still blogs at the Green Room at Hot Air, and his latest is a strong defense of the Eastwood bit (can’t call it a speech) at the GOP convention. I hope Karl won’t mind if I quote him at length:

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.

The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians. That part left me going whaaa? But in general I thought that it was about time somebody made fun of Obama in front of a national audience.

A perspicacious reader who does not wish to be named made an excellent observation. You had Ann Romney talking about love, and Chris Christie talking about how respect is more important than love. Then you had Clint Eastwood the next night. Does this make sense? Yes, it does:

Ann and Christie were the set up and Eastwood closed the deal. In other words, you can love Obama but respect is what matters, and Eastwood was there to make sure that no one respected Obama as much after he spoke as they did before.

I still think they should have done more humanizing Mitt on national TV, and maybe less of something else. But the idea that they began the important part of the campaign by making mockery of Obama fair game? Not bad, really. Not bad at all.

83 Responses to “Karl on the Eastwood Bit”

  1. I miss Karl.

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. Obama is a grifting huckster rainmaker who has been pyramiding and expanding his con since he entered politics.

    The problem with running a con is it cannot last, and a good con man knows when to wrap it up and leave.

    Barry was hoping he could keep the con going past the election but people are realizing the rainman hasn’t delivered rain. Let’s hope its a majority.

    rumcrook (4eb4d1)

  3. just 64 more days

    merciful God

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  4. “I still think they should have done more humanizing Mitt on national TV….”

    And you say you’re not funny, Patterico.

    Said the android itself on national TV: “Ann and I watched those [first moonwalk] steps together on her parent’s sofa.” Of course, human beings alive at the time watched it on their television sets.

    Eastwood’s no Newhart.

    And y’all are still tryin’ to explain it days later- mostly to yourselves. And if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Priceless.

    “FIDO says it couldn’t be any better.” – NASA PAO, STS-1, 4/14/81

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  5. Chance, the Gardner, has in, over-exposing himself from day one, run a slapstick campaign into the ground.

    Even Obots cannot take this stumblebum seriously.

    He will lose bigger than McLame.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  6. Democrats still don’t know what hit them, and what a mark it’s left.

    mg (44de53)

  7. National Empty Chair Day 2 months

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/monday-empty-chair-day/
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/213433.php
    http://thewall.com/topics/41523-eastwooding-inspires-national-empty-chair-day-on
    http://www.examiner.com/article/empty-chair-day-on-labor-day-monday
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/02/Eastwooding-Inspires-National-Empty-Chair-Day-on-Monday

    Many others

    The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians.

    I saw one comment that “Checking with the Russians” was a reference to Obama’s “Tell Vladimir…”
    And I think the comment was not so much against the war in Afghanistan, but the idea we were committed to leave Afghanistan, not win the war; and if we are committed to leave, then why not leave sooner than later.

    <em[Released from filter.]

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  8. Comment by DCSCA — 9/3/2012 @ 2:23 am

    It is clear that “the android” frequently shows more human compassion to individuals he doesn’t even know than the one shows to his own relatives. “Am I my half-brother’s keeper?”

    The liberal, “I love Humanity, it’s people I can’t stand” personified.

    Have a nice empty chair Monday!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  9. Hmm, I made two posts, both visible on my screen, only one acknowledged in the “Recent Posts” column and comment count.?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. DCSCA

    I dont comment on your posts but insulting the host is over the line.

    You can argue with him, but mocking him, being disrespectful isnt the way to get his attention – if thats what you are trying to do.

    I know there are “cringe” worthy over and under educated right wingies haunting the comment section here (they have for years) piling on anyonee out of their thought stream – but the difference between them, DCSCA, and anyone on the left is: These “cringe” worthy wingies really do care about their country, and you and your family. I cant say that about you or your ilk.

    These well meaning but flawed cringers want a better place for you to live in, not some socialist paradise which the last 2 remaining are north Korea and Cuba.

    So trying to out moron them isnt going to get you anywhere and thinking that Pat is one of these, you are sadly mistaken.

    EPWJ (8a4ca7)

  11. Well done DCSCA! Colin Quinn couldn’t have done a better job of portraying a clueless blabbermouth.

    What’s next?

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  12. I don’t think my previous post on this is showing, but time is of the essence:
    IT’S NATIONAL EMPTY CHAIR DAY!!!
    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/02/monday-is-national-empty-chair-day/

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  13. The identifying characteristic about Eastwood is he never ‘suffered fools gladly’ well there you go.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  14. If it was so ineffective, the leader of the free world’s TOTUS would not have felt compelled to respond, nor would you continue to bleat about it.

    DSCSA is kind enough to remind us of Fido, and how Teh Won ate dog.

    JD (804352)

  15. EPWJ is blissfully self-unaware.

    JD (804352)

  16. 23 million unemployed is a national disgrace. We have to do better. Elect Romney- Ryan.

    For that important message to resonate we don’t need anything either fancy or ugly or more complex. Don’t need to discuss percentages. Just those words simply spoken, and printed on ads of all kinds in a thousand media markets across the country from now until election day.

    elissa (fa24a8)

  17. What the transcript doesn’t show but the video does: the several hours of slow-sipping scotch before the performance.

    Larry Reilly (c3b723)

  18. Disco Stu on The Morning Zoo:
    And you say you’re not funny, Patterico.
    – As long as he keeps allowing you to keep posting your ad-hom full, content lite nonsense, I’d say he was perpetuating one of the longest running jokes in history.

    Said the android itself on national TV: “Ann and I watched those [first moonwalk] steps together on her parent’s sofa.” Of course, human beings alive at the time watched it on their television sets.
    – *rimshot*
    [Don't quit your day job, Shecky.]

    And y’all are still tryin’ to explain it days later
    – If thou weren’t thickest as teh brickest, t’wouldn’t hath to be explained to thee at all.

    mostly to yourselves.
    – WE got it on day one. Now we’re waiting for the remedial types to catch up.

    And if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
    – “Forward!” cried the President, desperate to avoid having to explain the previous four years.

    Priceless.
    – Useless.

    Eastwood’s no Newhart.
    – During all of his years on SportsCenter, whenever Keith Olbermann said “for those of you scoring at home, or even if you’re by yourself,” it felt as if he was speaking directly to YOU, didn’t it?

    Icy (e071b2)

  19. Larry Reilly, uninspired cheap insult … it is all Obama sycophants like you have left. Especially hilarious since Eastwood got under Obama’s skin. Not hard since it is so thin.

    SPQR (f10b76)

  20. EPWJ is blissfully self-unaware.
    Comment by JD — 9/3/2012 @ 6:53 am

    – Perhaps he has found peace of mind in the hinterlands.

    Icy (e071b2)

  21. What Mawy Weilly’s posts fail to show is the faintest spark of intelligence or originality . . . or coherence . . . or relevance . . . or engagement in honest debate. Truly, THE person for whom the phrase “a waste of bandwidth” was coined.

    Icy (e071b2)

  22. And in the spirit of what Eastwood did: Celebrate a diversity of empty chairs! The magic is in the “O” and also special historical proof of a connection between Barack Obama and…?

    The Eastwood bit was original, fun and a bit scary to watch the first time. But it was a classic and people will talk of it for a long time.

    EBL (f71fce)

  23. Heh. What a total troll magnet any thread here which discusses Eastwood’s performance and impact on the campaign has become.

    Some find it hard to imagine why the trolls are wasting so much time on something like this if it was such a “failure” and such an “embarrassment” to ol’ Clint Eastwood as the left claims. (Unless of course you understand that lefty operatives always show you by their reactions what they most fear, and then their frantic and vitriolic trolling efforts here and elsewhere make more sense.)

    elissa (fa24a8)

  24. Larry Reilly aka Oxygen Thief

    Colonel Haiku (605f7a)

  25. SPQR – I always enjoy Mawy’s hatred, as he shows us how truly objective Journolistas are.

    JD (804352)

  26. _______________________________________________

    The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable

    I’m only unsure about Eastwood because when Hollywood leftists — who are a dime a dozen — publicly blab about some topic or controversy, conservatives and others correctly retort that just because such people are prominent due to a showbiz connection doesn’t give them any special qualifications for entering the political sphere. However, from a purely tactical standpoint, the Republican Party’s planners did make the necessary choice by getting Eastwood involved.

    But in general I still tend to be annoyed at the idea of celebrities inserting their political POVs into the middle of the public and assuming that public will give them special leeway for doing so. Then again, even though I think “Saturday Night Live” on NBC is a crummy TV show, its parodies of politicians still command more attention, particularly (and oddly) from parts of the intelligentsia, than they deserve. So the line between Hollywood and the political world already is sometimes ridiculously blurred.

    Mark (88885c)

  27. R.I.P. Reverend Sun Myung Moon

    Icy (e071b2)

  28. Suppression! DNC Charlotte: Identification required, even just near convention site…

    RAAAAAAAAAACCCIISSSSTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (605f7a)

  29. The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians.

    Eastwood is a pretty solid libertarian, which means he’s not going to be very supportive of foreign wars. As you said, he’s not really talking to Republicans, but the Paulbots heard that part quite clearly.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  30. I think most reasonable people understood Eastwood’s intentions and why he was specifically tasked with this job: by going after Obama publicly, he would be setting himself up as a significant target.

    The left does not do nuance or subtlety well, nor do they go below the surface to critically think through things very often (yes, broad brush. So what?). In one sense they had one big collective incensed emotional reaction of “How dare he!” rather than peeling back the layers.

    Now both of these reactions below are essentially accurate, however clearly they miss/intentionally avoid the next step in asking themselves “why” Eastwood thought this and “what” had the president done to elicit these observations: Rev. Al accused Eastwood of “belittling” President Obama by suggesting he would curse Mitt Romney, while Big Ed called Eastwood’s interview of the empty chair “demeaning.”

    On the other hand, some may be smart enough to have understood just how sly and clever Eastwood was but could not afford to confirm that and instead they too went with an attack of a different tactic – they played the ageism card Rachel Maddow: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow took this occasion to demean senior citizens seven ways to Sunday while critiquing the performance on her show, saying: “I don’t – I don’t – I don’t know what was going on there. Clint Eastwood is 82 years old and I think that – I don’t know if that’s what was going on there.” Maddow’s vitriol continues with her having the audacity to continue her rant saying that the reason that Clint Eastwood delivered a babbling, oft-times incoherent, 12-minute speech at the Republican National Convention was because he’s old – 82 years old.

    So, either they’re genuinely clueless, or they have to go on the attack because they knew exactly what he had so effectively done and the damage it would render. The problem is, I sincerely doubt Eastwood cares what they think. And I think at this juncture, Eastwood fans and non-fans – iow, voters – really only care about jobs, jobs, jobs, not some hysterical pundits who can’t handle the truth.

    Dana (292dcf)

  31. @ Patterico,

    I still think they should have done more humanizing Mitt on national TV, and maybe less of something else.

    How much more humanizing could they do – they had Ann come from the long-time spouse angle; they had private citizens tell story after story of Mitt’s compassion and humanity as a church leader as he actually lived what he preached in outreach to their loved ones; we had his son speak of his dad and the deep respect he has for his dad, etc.

    What specifically were you hoping that others would do to further “humanize” him, or were you looking for some different emotional reaction from Mitt himself, something less teflon appearing??

    Dana (292dcf)

  32. Obama’s apologists have a problem. How can they play the race card against an empty chair without revealing they’re defending an empty suit?

    ropelight (bee21e)

  33. How much more humanizing could they do – they had Ann come from the long-time spouse angle; they had private citizens tell story after story of Mitt’s compassion and humanity as a church leader as he actually lived what he preached in outreach to their loved ones; we had his son speak of his dad and the deep respect he has for his dad, etc.
    What specifically were you hoping that others would do to further “humanize” him, or were you looking for some different emotional reaction from Mitt himself, something less teflon appearing??

    A lot of it was not on national TV.

    Patterico (83033d)

  34. I think the Eastwood thing was inspired for another reason: the Leftoids making “fun” of Clint are unintentionally pushing the meme that the Left disrespects elders. That won’t be great on election day.

    Well, they disrespect anyone who doesn’t genuflect to Teh Won.

    But, like our trolls, the progressivists are so bloody arrogant that they don’t see it. I think the reason why is very simple.

    Most Leftists spend all their time with other Leftists, and shut down all discussion otherwise. Folks on the Right need to work around the Left, and to be frank, are generally better mannered. So I think that the Right is far more accepting of ideas other than their own than the Left.

    Folks on the Left may laugh. Go ahead. The truth stings.

    Simon Jester (f2f44e)

  35. In a way, the Instapundit addressed Patterico’s concern earlier today when he posted two links (arguably, with opposite opinions) on how many people watched the GOP convention. In the first Instapundit link, Michael Barone noted that viewership was way down and thus not worth the cost — either to the Party or the media. The second Instapundit link is to a blogger who speculates that committed viewers chose C-Span’s coverage and/or online options which aren’t included in the viewer count. I encourage everyone to read both.

    I think more and more people are choosing online options that suit their convenience. I know I do.

    However, it will be interesting to see whether the major networks limit or interrupt coverage of the Democratic convention the way they did the GOP convention. My guess is they won’t in order to lure in committed viewers and to increase viewership for the Democrats in Charlotte. If so, it’s another way the media tries to rig the game for the Democrats.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  36. National TV doesn’t seem to be the first go-to for most age demographics, aside from the elderly. Ipads, laptops, iphones, You Tube for specific speeches, etc. would seem to be more sought after avenues. And, as time is of the essence more than ever, I don’t know many people who sit through entire conventions and/or watch them on which ever big 3 network is carrying it that year. It’s far too time consuming, frustrating (talking heads interrupting and/or cutting off speeches) especially when we can google any specific speech we want to see.

    You Tube Trends suggests millions of viewers are watching You Tube videos of Romney and Obama in far greater numbers as the election draws near. While some are parodies of the candidates, since the primaries began, there have been more than 100 million views of official presidential candidate videos on YouTube.

    Dana (292dcf)

  37. “The second Instapundit link is to a blogger who speculates that committed viewers chose C-Span’s coverage and/or online options which aren’t included in the viewer count. I encourage everyone to read both.”

    DRJ – I watched on C-Span on my computer first because I don’t get cable and second because I did not want to hear any network bloviators.

    With respect to Patterico’s point about not a lot of the convention being shown on TV, how much control does the RNC really have over that process? If the argument is that you know you are going to have a couple of hours each night so slip in more personal interest, humanizing background stories as opposed to showing the depth of the GOP bench and success of the conservative message across the country as was done with our governors and others last week, that is a discussion worth having. It is one of personality versus principles.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. OT: I’ve decided to start blogging again, after a layoff of several years. The new blog is Not Yet Europe, aimed at US, California and maybe Los Angeles politics with the occasional SF or movie review.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  39. 2. Obama is a grifting huckster rainmaker who has been pyramiding and expanding his con since he entered politics.

    Comment by rumcrook — 9/3/2012 @ 12:22 am

    Oh, he’s been a grifting huckster long before he entered politics:

    Plaintiffs in Obama class-action housing lawsuit got … coupons

    The Daily Caller has a multi-installment scoop about the business practices of a little-known presidential candidate as its Labor Day story. This hard-nosed professional raised hopes of working-class people, made a million dollars off of them, and left almost all of them holding nothing more than worthless paper at the end of the relationship. Are we seeing another episode of How the Heartless Vampire Capitalist Turns, starring Mitt Romney? No, this one’s titled Fun With Community Organizers, starring Barack Obama.

    Plaintiffs’ attorneys took home nearly $1 million in Barack Obama’s 1995 class-action discrimination lawsuit against Citibank, but 183 of the 186 plaintiffs did not get a dime.

    Three named plaintiffs in the lawsuit — Selma Buycks-Roberson, Calvin Roberson and Renee Brooks –- each collected $20,000. But none of the [183] ordinary, or non-named, plaintiffs that The Daily Caller was able to reach for comment reported receiving any money.

    The media couldn’t dig this up in 2008. But, hey, look on the bright side! we know Ryan’s a mediocre runner.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  40. “High 0ffice Grifter”

    Colonel Haiku (3d37b7)

  41. 4. Comment by DCSCA — 9/3/2012 @ 2:23 am

    I’ve figured out what those letters stand for.

    The “D” and “A” are the initials of David Axelrod.

    The third “C” is for communist.

    The “S” is for what you have to do to drink through a straw.

    Any guesses what the first “C” stands for?

    On another thread I was begging David Axelrod to send us interesting trolls, Mr. Sean turning out to be a complete bust.

    Now, it turns out he’s a pretty lame troll himself. No wonder we keep getting college interns trying to talk beyond their knowledge and experience.

    But David Axelrod, thanks for exposing the Democratic strategy for this election.

    Don’t believe your lying eyes! Romney’s an android.

    Don’t believe your lying eyes! Eastwood wasn’t devastatingly funny.

    Don’t believe your lying bank account! You’re better off now than four years ago.

    Don’t believe that lying foreclosure notice, Mr. Unemployed! Good times are right around the corner.

    Yeah. That’ll work.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  42. 1. Despite the economy thousands of unionistas gather in downtown Chicago today to support teachers who are threatening strike in a few days.

    2. In a rousing speech Karen Lewis the grotesque Chicago Teacher’s Union president calls Rahm a liar to cheers. Then calls him a bully to cheers.

    3. Despite threat of teacher’s strike in nation’s 3rd largest school system Rahm is at the Democrat convention.

    4. Despite escalating crime wave and murders in the city at least 50 Chicago cops are in Charlotte to “help” with security.

    You cannot make this stuff up.

    elissa (fa24a8)

  43. at least 50 Chicago cops are in Charlotte to “help” with security.

    Read: to continue their duty as armed bodyguards to the civic fat cats. Of course, there is a history with Chicago mayors and Democrat conventions in the south during depressions.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  44. The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians. That part left me going whaaa?

    You were supposed to be uncomfortable. People these days think “edgy” is supposed to mean vulgar. As if dropping a crucifix in a jar of urine is “edgy.” It isn’t.

    Now, Eastwood’s performance was edgy. It had you on the edge of your seat, didn’t it? Then he reeled you back in.

    Here’s sort of an old sight gag that provides a visual representation of what Eastwood’s on-stage schtick was supposed to elicit.

    Channin building stunt, 1932

    Every time you think you’re about to watch a trainwreck, Channin pulls it back in. That’s what Eastwood did.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  45. still….Obama’s “this chair is taken” got 50k retweets. Mitt Romney’s latest tweet got 4k retweets.
    Obama has 20 million twitter followers and Romney just got one million.
    The RNC internet memes that trended were #eastwooding and @InvisibleObama. Just like the internet memes that caught fire after Romneys british visit were #Romneyshambles and #AmericanBorat.
    Now you might say twitter doesnt matter– but it does. Its shaping generations of future voters who are imprinted with the imagery of conservatives as goofs.
    Patterico, conservatives are still trying to “take back culture”. That is what Eastwood was supposed to represent.
    That is why he had the second spot, right before Romney.
    But culture doesnt have a steering wheel.
    That is why liberals are so much better at contemporary culture….because we arent trying to drive.

    wheelers.cat (c8fa66)

  46. “Obama has 20 million twitter followers…”

    Eh, not really.

    Dana (292dcf)

  47. You beat me to it Dana.

    This is why the Democrats think we’re all stupid. Because their core constituencies are gobsmackingly gullible.

    P.T. Barnum said you can fool some of the people all of the time. The Democrats said, “hey, we can use that. Let’s go after those people.”

    P.T. Barnum and the Democrats were talking about wheelers.cat.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  48. Oh, by the way, Obama’s campaign “astroturfed” at least one of his Reddit questions.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  49. It’s the economy, stupid. No one cares about culture, taking it back, letting it go, blah, blah, blah. Anything to try and distract from miserable truth: unemployment remains stuck above 8.3%, national debt is 15.9 trillion and climbing, and Obama doesn’t have a clue how to fix it. That’s what Eastwood was about.

    Dana (292dcf)

  50. Sounds like someone is out of rehab, again. But then, with the latest polls, AAALLLL the usual trolls will be appearing to stir the pot.

    So to speak.

    Simon Jester (275d72)

  51. I was referring to Lil’ Nishi, of course, not the one and only Dana.

    Simon Jester (275d72)

  52. nishi is all about teh Hope and teh Strange.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. And Dana, I think the way to go is to put up those campaign promises and compare them to the actual bits. Like these:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy9hiQ4yeDY

    and my favorite:

    http://mrctv.org/videos/obama-2009-if-economy-isnt-fixed-3-years-there-will-be-1-term-proposition

    Simon Jester (275d72)

  54. ___________________________________________

    Because their core constituencies are gobsmackingly gullible — Comment by Steve57

    That along with their shallow compassion, fake generosity and phony tolerance makes for quite a combo.

    http://www.wvxu.org, Sept 3:

    Lee Saunders, a Cleveland native who is president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) gave an impassioned speech to the several hundred delegates gathered for the daily delegation breakfast at the Oasis Shriners Lodge, urging them to go “work your hearts out” for the re-election of President Obama this fall.

    Near the end of his speech, Saunders dragged an empty chair next to the podium. “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to give you Clint Eastwood,” Saunders said. “What do you have to say for yourself?,” Saunders shouted at the empty chair. “Well he doesn’t have anything to say. Mitt Romney doesn’t have anything to say. Paul Ryan doesn’t have anything to say.”

    Saunders ended his speech by kicking the chair over, tumbling it across the stage, as the crowd erupted in wild applause.

    “OK,” said Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern as he took over the podium. “You know we have to pay a deposit on this furniture.”

    So if the typical liberal really isn’t more generous than anyone else, isn’t more compassionate than anyone else, isn’t more tolerant than anyone else, then what the hell are they good for? Their common sense? Their logic? [Snerk]

    Most Leftists spend all their time with other Leftists, and shut down all discussion otherwise. Comment by Simon Jester

    news.investors.com, March 2012:

    In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics.

    The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

    Mark (88885c)

  55. Always reacting to the right. But still no proactive insight from even one of our leftist trolls on why they believe the president deserves a second term and why they continue to support him.

    Smart product brands like Tide don’t waste their ad money on spots that knock All and Purex and Cheer. Tide explains to consumers why Tide is best at what it does and why people should buy it instead of the other choices. Axelrod can’t do that with the damaged Obama brand so this (trolls and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) are what they’re left with.

    elissa (fa24a8)

  56. Wow, Dana.

    elissa (fa24a8)

  57. Not only is he an Empty Suit, but it seems to be an animatronic one, on an endless-loop.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  58. Great ad; thanks for the link, Dana.

    I hope the Romney campaign has more ads lined up using video of Obama against him.

    Simon Jester @ 55 links to a video of Obama saying if he doesn’t fix the economy in 3 years he’s a one term proposition.

    They need to make an ad, if they haven’t already, having Obama explain the Democratic campaign strategy to the American people. Combine that video about him being a one term proposition with video of him saying this during his acceptance speech:

    …because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

    If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

    And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

    Yup. We have heard it all before.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  59. By the way, that was his August 2008 DNC acceptance speech.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  60. @34. Precisely, Patterico. Poor stagecraft.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  61. Patterico, conservatives are still trying to “take back culture”. That is what Eastwood was supposed to represent.
    That is why he had the second spot, right before Romney.
    Comment by wheelers.cat — 9/3/2012 @ 11:41 am

    – Marco Rubio had the second spot.

    Stupid kitty.

    Icy (e071b2)

  62. It’s not “stagecraft” when GOP puts on a convention and the media selectively edits out minorities and stories that humanize Mitt Romney. It’s bias.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  63. @34. Precisely, Patterico. Poor stagecraft.
    Comment by DCSCA — 9/3/2012 @ 1:20 pm

    – And if anyone knows poor stagecraft, it’s Disco Stu and his tap-dance-around-the-truth shoes!

    Icy (e071b2)

  64. It doesnt matter.
    Like Nate Silver said, demographics is destiny.

    wheres happyfeet?
    did he quit you like Karl did?

    wheelers.cat (c8fa66)

  65. Nishidiot – your desperation stinks.

    JD (d13ff9)

  66. 63. @34. Precisely, Patterico. Poor stagecraft.

    Comment by DCSCA — 9/3/2012 @ 1:20 pm

    Poor attempt at propaganda, Mr. Axelrod.

    Pat, you certainly know that if they spent more time trying to showcase Romney’s humanity (I bet Romney wouldn’t let his brother survive on $1/mo. in a Nairobi slum like King “I am my brother’s keeper” Putt) then MSNBC would have spent more time cutting away so Rachel Maddow, “Red” Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Tingles Matthews could continue their on-air hatefest, all the while barking at racist dog whistles only they can hear.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  67. The other networks doing likewise.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  68. As savvy as conservatives have become, they are still far from where they need to be.

    Some wonderful and highly intelligent conservatives believe Eastwood’s routine was not scripted and rehearsed. They cite the New York Times citing clueless Romney people (or maybe not clueless, just distancing themselves) as saying the routine was not rehearsed.

    Eastwood did not make up those lines on the fly, nor did he make up the premise on the fly.

    Eastwood’s skit was no more unscripted or unrehearsed than his movies, or David Mamet’s book was dashed off and rambling (as some conservatives believed).

    Alas. It is no big deal. It is just discouraging that conservatives are presented a brilliant work of art, performed on their behalf so to speak, and they cannot recognize it and celebrate it as such. In their ignorance, they have missed a great opportunity for advancing the cultural appeal of conservatism.

    Tonawanda (fda4d0)

  69. Tonawanda, I agree that many conservatives did miss the brilliance of Eastwood’s one. Certainly not all. The great Mark Steyn being one of them.

    I think other people were thrown off when they saw “mystery speaker” on the schedule. They were expecting a speech. What they got was a “mystery performer;” one who skewered Obama.

    As far as:

    They cite the New York Times citing clueless Romney people (or maybe not clueless, just distancing themselves) as saying the routine was not rehearsed.

    I don’t think those people actually exist. But that’s just my first reaction when I see “unnamed” sources cited in the Old Grey Prostitute, founder of the Walter Duranty/Jason Blair school of journalism. When they can’t find a source who’ll go on the record, they’ll imagineer one.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  70. Thanks for the “apology”, Nishi.

    Icy (3cd0cb)

  71. My favorite wife is in a quandary. She is an Obamabot but she also greatly likes and respects Clint Eastwood. She likes his movies more than I do. The worst thing she could say about his speech was “but there are conservatives who say he should have kept it short and scripted”. She couldn’t say who the conservatives — betting she got it second-hand from NPR and NYT.

    That’s why the Obama camp’s heads are exploding. People know Eastwood is a good and decent man and his words reasonate. They don’t dare attack him directly.

    nk (875f57)

  72. Oh, by the way, Obama’s campaign “astroturfed” at least one of his Reddit questions.

    Comment by Steve57 — 9/3/2012

    When I skimmed through I saw a lot of hackery and no actual scrutiny. There were several ‘why are you so awesome’ and ‘why are the Republicans so [insert Obama's campaign meme]‘, but no ‘What about Brian Terry?’ or ‘The deficit, wtf?’ questions.

    Whatever that mess was, it wasn’t Obama coming down from the mountain to interact with the citizens.

    Dustin (73fead)

  73. Dustin, I was talking about this.

    Profile created mere hours before minutes after the AMA was announced, and literally six seconds before asking a well written, paragraph long question (approximate typing speed assuming it was typed after creating the account? 1570 wpm)
    Created a profile 5 minutes 39 seconds after the AMA going live, when servers were having a fit.
    Asked question explicitly requesting ways to recruit the youth that Obama relied on last election (many of whom are disillusioned with him, for all the reasons she presents herself as being subject to)
    Is literally only 1 of 10 questions answered.
    asked by one hmlee who (according to some internet detective work):
    has only one comment in her history, total
    Posted a blog entry supporting Obama
    lists herself as working/having worked an intern at the Department of Justice

    So, is it possible that she heard about it on her own, created an account, and typed up an eloquent question that is a PR man’s wet dream all within less than 6 minutes? Yes, it’s possible. It’s just not particularly likely.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  74. The first clause should read:

    Profile created mere hours before minutes after the AMA was announced,

    As in the original.

    Steve57 (40573d)

  75. Nishi, it is always hilarious to see you repeating long-debunked Democrat lies. Is the problem the speed of light delay from your planet?

    SPQR (8b3503)

  76. (approximate typing speed assuming it was typed after creating the account? 1570 wpm)

    Not bad.

    Given that the father of astroturd of David Axelrod, I would be surprised if most of this kind of stuff wasn’t carefully choreographed and fake.

    I almost don’t blame Obama for this. Given the last several years, opening himself up to a real forum would be risky to say the least. From the IG firing to gunrunning to his own ‘paygo’ promise and the Obamacare tax ruling, Obama has to tread very carefully.

    Dustin (73fead)

  77. Some unfortunate typos in my last comment. heh

    Dustin (73fead)

  78. Clint Eastwood actually pulled a surprise on Romney.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/politics/romney-aides-scratch-their-heads-over-eastwoods-speech.html?_r=1

    When he asked for a chair, nobody knew what he wanted it for. They must have thought he wanted to sit down.

    Eastwood had given him a gravelly, full-throated endorsement at a fund-raiser at the Sun Valley Resort Lodge in Idaho this summer and Romney wanted him to repeat that.

    He did sort of use the talking points that Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens had given him.

    He did read off a teleprompter. He ignored the time limit and a blinking red light. And he never told anyone about wanting a chair until the last moment, and did not explain why.

    Clint Eastwood pulled a fast one.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  79. The Democrats’ answer to Clint Eastwood

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80743.html

    Kal Penn

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  80. Clips from an interview in his local paper:

    But in a wide-ranging interview with The Pine Cone Tuesday, he said he had conveyed the messages he wanted to convey, and that the spontaneous nature of his presentation was intentional, too.
    “I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”

    “President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.”

    “A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama,” Eastwood said.

    http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4171 secs.