Tweet
I pulled up a chair next to the woodstove in my shop. With the help of a student, we conjured up Eugene Ionesco’s ghost. I grabbed a chair and invited the ghost to sit there……
I think most pundits, newsies and bloggers have had a hard time grasping what Eastwood did for at least two reasons: He WAS doing improv, and he was too old to put himself in Steven Colbert’s shoes.
I was working when he gave his “warmup” for “save it for Mitt.” When I finally got around to watching his RNC speech late Friday night, I was struck by the dissonance between what occurred and how it has been looked upon.
Eastwood did not endorse Romney.
He certainly didn’t endorse Obama, but, other than criticize the president for many things the real left dislike about him, Eastwood didn’t go there, let alone throw out the red (black) meat this convention might have expected for a highly touted “mystery” warmup.
Here’s the nub:
I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
Yo know, I mean — you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it — they did there for 10 years.
(APPLAUSE)
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe — I think you’ve mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, “Why are you giving the date out now?
Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?”
(APPLAUSE)
And I thought — I thought, yeah — I am not going to shut up, it is my turn.
(LAUGHTER)
So anyway, we’re going to have — we’re going to have to have a little chat about that.
Are we?
No, we are not. The only candidate who has consistently advocated withdrawal from Afghanistan has been Ron Paul.
Was Eastwood trying to be a contrarian? Might he have been attempting to use the place the RNC had given him in this event – the warmup for what the insiders knew was going to be a lackluster closer – to appeal for something he couldn’t manage to articulate?
We should ask Mike Gravel what he thought of Eastwood’s speech.
32 Comments
Please ask Gravel. The reaction has been quite mixed. Many thought he was really completely out of it; others seemed to think he was brilliantly clever. I heard L. Ingraham doing a serious shout out supporting & praising his performance. However he was being used or lost or celebrated, I certainly believe that he did not deliver what R had intended. Thanks for your thoughts.
On both Afghanistan and Guantanamo, he attribute reasonable positions to Mitt that are the exact opposites of what Mitt has announced. How much more could he have embarrassed and disgraced Mitt.
That may have been the performance of a lifetime. He played the part of an over-the-hill octagenarian and in the process burned up the most precious time of the convention with stuff that made Mitt look bad. Give him an award, an Oscar or something.
Perhaps the most enjoyable feature of the speech was seeing and hearing all those Republicans cheering so wildly for an immediate withdrawal from Afgahnistan. What a bunch of commie peaceniks they really are. Yet, I didn’t hear the mainstream press picking up on this and bringing it into the conversation. As we know, to the victor go the political spoils of war.
Eastwood was sure a lot less senile than the rest of the speakers there. He obviously wrote out a thoughtful commentary on the electoral situation. He spoke slowly, but he didn’t miss a line. He didn’t endorse Romney. He’s still a good writer and director (though I’ve usually thought of most of his work as Right-wing Propaganda).
I sure wish someone could ask Ralph Ellison, who wrote The Invisible Man (pub. 1053), about the deep offense portrayed on that stage: America’s first African-American president, invisible and scolded by Dirty Harry.
I thought it was a good speech. It was nice to get to hear issues such as Gitmo and the War in Afghanistan being addressed.
I think Clint Eastwood’s performance was the most decadent, self indulgent thing I have ever seen. Watching him wank for 12 minutes to wild applause. I think the Republicans are washed up.
Eastwood was an 82 year old living metaphor for the abandoned moderate Republicans.
I agree with you, Edward. Although I think that what he did demonstrated the power of subliminal speaking. It wasn’t what he said so much as what he did not say. It wasn’t ‘not managing’; it was managing very well indeed. I saw the camera panning to politicians trying to explain to their wives what this was all about (Smile, dammit! Keep on smiling! And clapping! ) He got them to clap, and there was nary a boo in the house when he told us the truth about politicians. And finally, he got them to say the words he doesn’t say any more.
Loved it.
Really I think you are giving much too much credit… What was on display was pure Hollywood, someone who thinks his feces is crushed pineapple and that making schoolboy jokes about the POTUS, before the acceptance speech of someone who in January of next year could have the atomic bomb was appropriate behavior.
I think celebrity culture is dissolving American’s brains.
— I thought about that, too. I don’t see much of racism in Eastwood’s past films. Bird, Gran Torino and Letters from Iwo Jima, films he directed, all decry racism. Maybe I missed something.
I have decided it was performance art, and i also thought he never DID endorse Mitt on that stage, that night. Then later i thought maybe it was a little sly push for his movie which is coming out soon. In it he appears to play an old guy touching on senility but ornery still.
The misunderstanding is that ALL the negative comments after Thursday night were directed toward Eastwood and not Romney.
It is called “running interference.”
And the Democrats fell for it big time.
Not a glove touched Romney because everyone was so busy hitting Eastwood.
I’m pretty sure people haven’t been talking much about Romney since his speech because it sucked bigtime. I listened to it on my way home from work Thursday, and I thought “Romney’s getting better at what he does best – getting away with being fake.” But watching his speech on video yesterday, it didn’t come across very well at all. Romney isn’t going to get much of a bounce off the RNC, and Eastwood may be part of that.
Yes, Eastwood drained all the solemnity out of the moment. Phoney as he is, Romney is the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, which makes him the direct “apostolic” successor of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower. If he wins the election he will become the world’s most powerful political figure, with the atomic button that could destroy humanity in his hands… his “coronation” is a solemn moment… or should be. I think having Clint Eastwood as closing speaker of the RNC shows clearly how shallow and superficial Mitt Romney is.
No, we are not. The only candidate who has consistently advocated withdrawal from Afghanistan has been Ron Paul.
Here’s a few others that would end the war and change how dod works
http://www.voterocky.org/
http://www.jillstein.org/
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
Just saying there more out there
It was pure Eastwood. The man with no-name in those spaghetti westerns who not even the audience really gets. Obscure and himself invisible.
I found the “go Cheney yourself” comments from the chair particularly interesting, especially when the camera cut away to Ryan having to explain to his wife what was implied.
I don’t think the the intentional and biting irony was lost on him that Obama would never have stooped so low as to have said that, but their man Cheney did.
I posted this comment at the Diner yesterday :
“EASTWOOD: I was even crying. And then finally — and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously — this administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.”
I found that kind of fascinating, because he didn’t at all seem to be implying that Rmoney was the one interested in coming along to solve it.
Yes. I agree. But I think Mr Eastwood’s comments showed that he, ( Eastwood), is very much the opposite of that.
Edit! I need you.
….how shallow and superficial Mitt Romney is.
You demonstrate the point exactly. The Romney speech sucked, but no one gave it any real critique because they were so busy going after Eastwood.
So, Romney got to leave the convention without any real scrutiny to what he said.
Eastwood ran perfect interference for Romney; 90% of the negative comments after the convention and Thursday night were about him. And, he’s not running for anything.
Ted Nugent was just wrong for the job and the Dempublicans couldn’t reanimate Charleton Heston’s corpse. So they thought they’d try to use Eastwood. *KABOOM*
Meh
I had a choice between watching a fictional political staged production based on propaganda and Madison Avenue marketing, or something closer to real life situations
I chose the latter
I’m so glad for your comment. The show looks really good, and I have been meaning to explore Link.
That shows a total lack of initiative. . . . I’m sure they could have rigged up something to get Heston to be as movable as a ventriloquist’s dummy.
Even though I usually avoid shows that’re subtitled, it’s very involving, and you don’t even really notice that you’re reading. Just thinking about subtitles – it’s a lot like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The English language version is ok, but the original Swedish version is so so much better because it has more depth with a more compelling story
I don’t mind subtitles at all, and really enjoy foreign films. Good excuse to watch a second or more times to catch the expression and nuance that is easy to miss while reading.
I watched all three tatto girl movies, first in original form, but had no problem following, as I had read all of the novels.
I watched one of the American versions, are there more, haven’t followed. But, it was okay. I didn’t have very high expectations.
Actors use chairs as props all the time and Clint actually brought up issues that both sides of the media are ignoring. I am not surprised that more attention is spent on his mannersism and not on what he said. That is just the way we are I guess.
At reason.com, a fairly conservative blog, Ed Krayewski has also taken up the comments by Eastwood on Afghanistan. The comments there are hilarious.
I thought Eastwood’s speech was great. Until now I thought I was the only one in the world that did. The mainstream media sucks beyond belief.
I was reminded of what they did to Howard Dean.
Exactly!
I agree, thought is was a great speech, an unexpected delight.