What Happened to Clint Eastwood at the RNC?

[Mediafrog+]

Sometimes the worst performance actors ever give is when they have to be themselves.

 

[Silkie]

He deliberately messed up his hair right up front and went for it. Par excellence!

 

[PandoraLover]

The whole convention felt disjointed. Clint Eastwood was just the icing on the cake. Started off on the wrong foot due to Mother Nature. Ann Romney underperformed expectations (which were set too high by Mitt's handlers blathering on about "secret weapon"). Chris Christie sounded like he was criticizing Romney not Obama (flip flopping based on polls... have you ever met "multiple choice Mitt?"). He was also so self absorbed he probably cost himself a chance at 2016/20. Ryan misunderstood his role as "lion", he thought they meant lyin'. Why give fact-checkers a hay day? If you can't find enough to criticize the president about that is actually true (and there is plenty), then you probably aren't ready for a Salem Talk radio gig let alone the Vice Presidency. Mitt delivers a boilerplate speech that gets ~8 million fewer viewers than John McCain in 2008. Looks like Obama's damage control team will be getting labor day off this year. If Mitt Romney doesn't lose the election this year, it won't be for lack of trying.

 

[RicoGregg]

He was also so self absorbed he probably cost himself a chance at 2016/20....If Mitt Romney doesn't lose the election this year, it won't be for lack of trying.

Already I've seen "Jeb Bush in 2016" stickers and I'm in a well-established blue state for cryin' out loud!

 

[landtuna]

The whole convention felt disjointed. Clint Eastwood was just the icing on the cake. Started off on the wrong foot due to Mother Nature. Ann Romney underperformed expectations (which were set too high by Mitt's handlers blathering on about "secret weapon"). Chris Christie sounded like he was criticizing Romney not Obama (flip flopping based on polls... have you ever met "multiple choice Mitt?"). He was also so self absorbed he probably cost himself a chance at 2016/20. Ryan misunderstood his role as "lion", he thought they meant lyin'. Why give fact-checkers a hay day? If you can't find enough to criticize the president about that is actually true (and there is plenty), then you probably aren't ready for a Salem Talk radio gig let alone the Vice Presidency. Mitt delivers a boilerplate speech that gets ~8 million fewer viewers than John McCain in 2008. Looks like Obama's damage control team will be getting labor day off this year. If Mitt Romney doesn't lose the election this year, it won't be for lack of trying.

That is possibly the best description of the RNC I've yet read. For a vocal recap of the day-to-day events I have been listening to Rachel Maddow. Yes, I know well her leaning, but she has not been criticizing the RNC or Republican Party directly....well, unless you consider sarcasm a direct bow shot. The Republicans have just shot themselves in the feet time after time after time and they are doing it in national publications, on TV and radio in ads and talk shows. It just never stops. Some media people are making a damned good living by pointing out the mistakes.

The DNC has yet to happen and might poll poorly as well, who knows? Personally I don't see why either party has conventions any longer since the results are known well in advance and the only thing that can come of a public fiasco is negative publicity. "Honey Boo Boo" out-viewed the RNC for example. They have become a circus.....without the entertainment.

 

[Silkie]

The results are well known in advance? So, do the parties sit around a table and decide whose turn it is?

So, how do music radio stations do it?

 

[landtuna]

The results are well known in advance? So, do the parties sit around a table and decide whose turn it is?

Are you serious? We just had a year of preliminary campaigning. Mitt Romney was the winner on the Republican side and so it is automatic that he would be confirmed by the convention as the candidate. The only absolute unknown going into the convention was the details of the party platform but even that was known in great detail - at least the major points. The various speeches by the candidates are meaningless and those given by others are even less so.

I'll say it again - there seems to be no reason for a political convention today and even less for it to be televised on network TV or radio. Broadcast the conventions on C-SPAN and don't waste valuable network bandwidth.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For a vocal recap of the day-to-day events I have been listening to Rachel Maddow. Yes, I know well her leaning, but she has not been criticizing the RNC or Republican Party directly....well, unless you consider sarcasm a direct bow shot.

I had never seen or heard Rachel Maddow until about a year ago. (Where I live, you don't get MSNBC unless you pay cable for a premium package.) I knew the name but had no exposure.

Have you read her book: "Drift"?

Here in Georgia comedian Lewis Grizzard is something of a Patron Saint of reading the public mood. After his heart bypass surgery he included a line in his monologues which went: "Let me tell you Baptists something. The pain of heart surgery will give you a whole new attitude about narcotics".

If you can for a few moments just get past the concept that you disagree with her on politics and just listen, she can give you "a whole new attitude about the political process".

MSNBC seems to value her skills. You will note that on the special election nights and conventions she is THE ANCHOR of the show.

And she has a doctorate in Political Studies from Oxford.

And she is now being invited to show up for the Sunday morning talk shows on TV.

Personally I don't see why either party has conventions any longer since the results are known well in advance and the only thing that can come of a public fiasco is negative publicity. "Honey Boo Boo" out-viewed the RNC for example. They have become a circus.....without the entertainment.

They remember the "glory days" of conventions and are still clinging to the hope that glory days will return. For now it is an institution that causes the networks to fork over some TV time and attention that all the advertising dollars in the world cannot buy. But now they are down to one hour per night on the major networks. When the networks change that to zero, we may see a change in thinking on the conventions.

And this year there was a little surprise that jumped up and "bit them in the butt" on the way to convention time.

The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court was seen by the Republicans as a great step forward from the days when they felt that the Democrats had an advantage due to election laws that allowed unions to spend great amounts of money. Starting this year, corporate America and wealthy America have freedom to put money into the election process they have never had before. The Republicans just knew this was going to swing things their way. All that additional money available for the General Election campaign.

The surprise that bit them in the behind is when that kind of money showed up in the Primary Election season. The reason the early primaries are typically held in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina is that it allows candidates with limited financial support to make a good showing, a good appearance and by the time of the convention, the big political dollars can be solicited by candidates who have done well at "retail politics" in the small, inexpensive campaign states. This year there was this collective gasp and mouths hanging wide open and state and local Republican leadership stuttered and said: This wasn't supposed to happen in the primary season... this was only supposed to happed this Fall. A number of commentators will tell you that the entire primary process on the Republican side was owned by FIVE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE with deep, deep pockets. Each candidate had his own private billionaire.

Four years from now if campaign law and tax law in not rewritten we may see the same thing happen in the Democratic Party primary when they do not have an incumbent.

 

[landtuna]

I had never seen or heard Rachel Maddow until about a year ago. (Where I live, you don't get MSNBC unless you pay cable for a premium package.) I knew the name but had no exposure.

Rachel used to guest on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC until KO quit (or was fired) and she got her own hour.

Her show can be seen on the Internet the day following cable broadcast on MSNBC.msn.com.

Have you read her book: "Drift"?

I have and thought it was excellent. For those that haven't yet read it, the book is not about politics left or right but rather the constant state of war that seems to grip the administration in power and the government organizations that keep it rolling. It is an accurate and sad commentary on our current government, politics aside.

Here in Georgia comedian Lewis Grizzard is something of a Patron Saint of reading the public mood.

I read Grizzard as well and he can be just as entertaining.

If you can for a few moments just get past the concept that you disagree with her on politics and just listen, she can give you "a whole new attitude about the political process".

Absolutely agree.

 

[quadraphonic]

Like most Hollywood types, I believe the speech was to promote his next movie, where he plays a dottering old baseball scout:

Perhaps but I think the crowd was expecting Dirty Harry and not a doddering old baseball scout who had obvious trouble connecting simple sentences.

The crowd could not be that delusional, could they?
Dirty Harry was 30 years ago. Eastwood was "old" then.
The crowd actually seemed to enjoy it, hindsight quarterbacks notwithstanding...

 

[LKellerIII]

Like most Hollywood types, I believe the speech was to promote his next movie, where he plays a dottering old baseball scout:

Perhaps but I think the crowd was expecting Dirty Harry and not a doddering old baseball scout who had obvious trouble connecting simple sentences.

The crowd could not be that delusional, could they?
Dirty Harry was 30 years ago. Eastwood was "old" then.
The crowd actually seemed to enjoy it, hindsight quarterbacks notwithstanding...

The film Dirty Harry (first of the series was 41 years ago (1971). Clint was 41 years old at the time. It was the only film in the series that he didn't direct.

 

[PandoraLover]

The results are well known in advance? So, do the parties sit around a table and decide whose turn it is?

Are you serious? We just had a year of preliminary campaigning. Mitt Romney was the winner on the Republican side and so it is automatic that he would be confirmed by the convention as the candidate. The only absolute unknown going into the convention was the details of the party platform but even that was known in great detail - at least the major points. The various speeches by the candidates are meaningless and those given by others are even less so.

I'll say it again - there seems to be no reason for a political convention today and even less for it to be televised on network TV or radio. Broadcast the conventions on C-SPAN and don't waste valuable network bandwidth.

I actually like to see the convention. I get it, that it is a big free advertisement for the candidate and party- but so what? Great I say. In the age of Citizens United and big money campaigning, let's see the candidates uninterrupted for an hour talking about what they believe in and where they stand on the issues. Let's at least pause and discuss the Party platform and see the major players without the media filter. It provides some clarity. PBS covered the convention as did many cable channels, in its entirety. I don't know what Bloomberg's 9 O'clock ratings are on a typical Tuesday, but my guess is that they were not heavily burdened by this selfless act of civic mindedness. The networks devoted 3 hours of prime time during what would otherwise be a pretty dead zone of repeats and reality shows. Once every 4 years, this does not strike me as onerous. If there really is some concern from the networks over losing the precious 10 O'clock hour in late august/early sep, maybe next time they can rotate coverage. Put me down as pro-convention, debate and anything else that isn't an attack ad.

 

[Silkie]

@Landtuna - I misunderstood you on the results already known.

That said, here we are on Page 4 of the Clint Eastwood thread several days later. Was it something he said?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That said, here we are on Page 4 of the Clint Eastwood thread several days later. Was it something he said?

One of the factors that has kept this story percolating is the implied word he did not say.

Here is the quadri-annual coronation of a party standard bearer. This is the party that wraps itself in the banner of family values. This is the party that has embedded itself with the most outspoken branch of the Christian religion... a party which on behalf of this religion-relationship is trying to legislate very strict rules on how every citizen, religious or not, will deal with the the intimate details surrounding pro-creation.

So in the midst of all this event designed to help put across this message on behalf of "The Party of Family Values" we have someone come on stage in a manner that some have likened to Foster Brooks of years gone by, and he invokes multiple times the unspoken word which has primary been used only in pool rooms and automobile repair shops when knuckles are smashed when wrenches slip while while trying to remove a rusty muffler.

I doubt if we will go on another four pages on this particular thread. But the odor of that Thursday night event will linger in the room right through election day.

I wonder how many Evangelical preachers will use the Clint Eastwood performance as a sermon illustration between now and election day.

I hope that one of these days we will get an answer to the question that is the title of this thread.... and the appropriate person to provide that answer would be: <drum roll please> Clint Eastwood.

 

[landtuna]

I hope that one of these days we will get an answer to the question that is the title of this thread.... and the appropriate person to provide that answer would be: <drum roll please> Clint Eastwood.

I have to say GRC that your posts are exceedingly humorous if not always point on. ;D

I thought the title of this thread had already been addressed and, that is that Mr. Eastwood was:

1. An actor, acting (although there is some discussion as to exactly what/who he was portraying).
2. He had lost his marbles.
3. There was no point to his diatribe, just another GOP distraction from their many faux pas.

Or....maybe it is all three. All I know is I have enjoyed Eastwood over the years as an actor. I know very little about the person behind the mask but it does seem that he has slipped into that "doddering old fool" space that seems to capture the majority of us at some point. That part was very disappointing to me personally. If he had something to say in support of the GOP I would have liked to hear it in plain English. I did not. Nor, by accounts, did others. I would have thought that by picking someone like Eastwood the obvious subject would have been law and order, gun rights or some such subject but none of that was addressed so I remain somewhat baffled by the choice of speaker.

 

[TheBigA]

If he had something to say in support of the GOP I would have liked to hear it in plain English. I did not.

That's why he didn't do that. Because he doesn't support a lot of the popular platform items like a ban on gay marriage or even the auto bailout. Eastwood voiced a documentary for the Obama administration a few years ago in support of the bailout. He's not a tea party conservative, so it's easier and more popular to just bash the opposition. That's why the Democrats haven't really attacked him. They know he's not the enemy, and his speech hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, as evidenced by the reactions from the Romney family.

 

[radioman148]

I thought he was right on & obama represented by an empty chair made the perfect point of a president who is an "empty suit!"

 

[landtuna]

Because he doesn't support a lot of the popular platform items like a ban on gay marriage or even the auto bailout.

From what I've read after the famous "speech" (which really wasn't a speech at all) Eastwood and I have a lot more in common politically than I would have thought. That major parts of the Republican platform we both disagree with prompts even more questions about why he performed as he did.

Is the president's personality or political agenda more important than that of his party or the Congress as a whole?

If you do not agree with major points of the party platform is it still OK to bash the opposition based upon personalities and/or perceived lack of performance?

If Eastwood is a moderate Republican (which is what I am led to believe) why would he support the radical party platform being pushed this year?

And if his performance was intended as some sort of sarcasm he missed the mark completely.

All of this makes little sense to me but I am guessing the media are pleased that he showed up. After all, it seems that his performance is about all there was to talk about.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I thought he was right on & obama represented by an empty chair made the perfect point of a president who is an "empty suit!"

The MBE (Managing Board Editor) has a limited amount of patience when we abandon the discussion of broadcasting and begin pursuing raw political diatribe. As president, Mr. Obama wears a different suit than you would prefer him to wear. Sometimes he carried things in his suit pockets that you wish he would dispose of and put items in his pocket that you find more practical. That is an entirely different discussion.

We are discussing how the Republicans made use of the time allotted to them by the networks. This coming week we will get to see how the other party executes their stewardship of "the gifts": (1) The value of the time made available by the networks. (2) The value of the time given by the listeners/viewers who tune in... many of them not deeply involved in the political process.

A week from now we may be discussing whether the Democrats used their opportunity of "the gifts" foolishly or wisely. This venue is not the place for us to discuss whether their basic message is right or wrong, whether their basic message is better or worse. This is the place to discuss how well or how poorly they made use of this thing we call broadcasting.

It is not our job as participants in this forum to argue whether Republicans are better or worse than Democrats. Our acceptable and assigned task is to discuss the way they make use of the valuable TV time given over to them.

This week we are discussing whether the performance of a Lion of the movie industry was good stewardship on his part, and good stewardship on the part of the gatekeepers who set the agenda for the convention programming. The question is not whether I like or dislike the Eastwood performance, or whether you like or dislike the Eastwood performance. I propose that the question is: Did TV viewer Joe Sixpack in Brinkley, AR or his brother Sammy in Oshkosh, WI..... neither of whom are political junkies.... come away from the performance any better prepared to go to the ballot box in November?

 

[TheBigA]

If you do not agree with major points of the party platform is it still OK to bash the opposition based upon personalities and/or perceived lack of performance?

That's been the mantra of the GOP for 3 years. They're united on one thing. Otherwise, there's a lot of disagreement.