Tweet
@zdroberts
A political convention to nominate candidate for the highest office in the land should be all about the candidate. He should be the focus of attention. He should be what everyone is talking about afterwards.
No one, except perhaps his spouse or running mate should overshadow him, especially not an old man arguing with an empty chair. Unfortunately for Republicans, the biggest highlight from their convention was Clint Eastwood – not Mitt Romney. From Pew Research:
The public paid far less attention to this year’s Republican convention than it did to the GOP convention four years ago. Just 37% say they watched all or some of the Republican convention, down from 56% in 2008.
And while there has been a modest increase in the percentage saying they view Mitt Romney more favorably in the wake of the convention, his acceptance speech was not the highlight of the event: As many of those who watched at least a little convention coverage cited Clint Eastwood’s speech as the convention highlight (20%) as named Romney’s speech (17%). One-in-five say there was no convention highlight, about the same percentage as four years ago.
It is pretty hard to mess up what effectively is a multi-day infomercial for your candidate, but Republicans apparently found a way. While not a game changing mistake, it was a serious and unforced error.
41 Comments
obama should walk on stage with a chair in hand just for the laugh
Any numbers on how many people liked Clint’s Speech? How many people thought Clint’s speech helped Mitt and how many people understood what Clint was trying to say?
Well not for his main speech but yes Obama should do a comedy speech first before his main speech. So should Michelle Ann’s speech deserves some high level Snark from the first Lady.
We should be leaving the convention with an idea about just what Mitt’s biggest ideas are and have details about how he intends to make them happen.
Just what will Mitt cut to solve the budget problems?
Perhaps the choice of Eastwood was deliberate because, in fact, it *would* overshadow Mitt? I mean that in earnest, not as snark. JMHO, but I find Mitt pretty, uh, un-likeable. The TeaGOPer crowd is filled with some pretty intense fundamental Christians, who typically find Mormons to be satan worshippers (just quoting from my family members).
One thing that’s made me laugh during this insane Kabuki Show is witnessing the many fundies I know bending themselves into pretzels to hold their nose and “support” RMoney as a candidate. And frankly, despite what some conservative say, the fact that the RMoney’s refuse to release their tax returns has to turn off conservatives, too.
So, there’s old Clint up on stage making the old white folks feel good and like they’re relevant and important. I found Eastwood’s speech to be perhaps more interesting than some did, and I definitely didn’t see him as “drunk,” or suffering from dementia. Having the ringer in the audience shout out “Make My Day” resulted in Clint wrapping it up in a way to make the audience feel even “better” because they got to shout that out (get offa my lawwwwwn).
IMO, it may have been a deliberate “fluffing” to distract the audience from the reality of Bishop Willard RBot. One way to look at it…
Obama should probably sit in a chair when giving his acceptance speech, on stage. Absolutely.
Given Mitt’s flip flops can we get polling from GOPers about what GOP voters think Mitt’s biggest issues are? I wonder just which of Mitt’s promises his voters believe he will do and which he won’t.
Mitt on abortion I would think would have some problems convincing the GOP he means what he says.
it’s his hair, it’s ken’s hair, it’s too good, he needs to lose some of it and then muss it up
I found his speech interesting, even including the use of the empty chair. I do think it was a performance piece that missed the mark for many people, albeit quite distracting.
Speaking for myself, I found “interesting” that Eastwood focused on the high unemployment figures and pointed his finger at Obama. Ok. Fair enough. But seriously, Clint? Like RMoney & Ryan are going to “fix” that? Like how? Like there’s RMoney who’s destroyed and off-shored waaaay more jobs that creating any (did Mitt ever create even one job?). How’s he the “solution” to this problem?
I dunno. Eastwood did that rather interesting commercial during the Superbowl, which seemed to me to be saying: c’mon folks, we need to work *together* to make this nation great again, and hooray for Detroit making a come back. That was pretty populist, but it made Piggy KKKarl Rove insanely angry.
So… go figure with what Eastwood’s message meant here. Or was he made to pay a pennance because of his Superbowl commercial? Food for thought.
Clint probably was meant to overshadow Mitt however I am sure Mitt was hoping it would be with a popular speech.
Not a popular speech that has everyone wondering was Clint drunk, high, or has some age related dementia.
I have seen first time improv actors get given a topic and persona from the audience do a better job than Clint did that night.
Maybe Clint is just a read the script guy with no improv chops. But outside that well the vibe I got from Clint was the danger vibe I get from volunteering at the homeless shelter.
A guy acts like Clint there I wonder if he is drunk, high or crazy and if he is going to start trouble.
Obvious dye job and something to slick it back is good hair?
Some comments about the convention here and here.
I didn’t get that vibe at all from Clint. That’s just me.
In fact, I felt he did “ok” with his performance piece. For me, I think the man was conflicted about the message he was meant to deliver. That’s just my take, but I think he said some important things about the economy. It’s just that, for me at least, there was the cognitive dissonance of then expecting the RMoney/Ryan duo to “fix” it.
I don’t think Clint was drunk or suffering from dementia, but he *may* have wanted to stir the pot & distract from RMoney. That’s a possibility.
have you noticed how thick and full the hairline?
that’s pretty good hair
Eastwood is a cinema artist through-and-through, and was probably just trying to do an ad-hoc psychodrama (as opposed to mindless convention red meat) thinking it would be understood as such.
Nonetheless, it really failed, big time.
I agree on the issues Clint raised. I think Clint needed to explain why Mitt would be better than Obama on the issues Clint himself raised.
Clint left us hanging but then again only by lying could Clint make that case.
Clint talking to an empty chair could have worked if he had the material and delivery.
However The material was flawed by a lack of explanation of why Mitt would be better. The huge mistake Clint made was on the delivery of the material.
Clint is a great actor but his speech well I’ve seen first timers not know a topic beforehand deliver a better performance.
I agree that it failed bc of the audience it was aimed at. It wasn’t appropriate for that venue, and Eastwood did stumble around quite a bit. I felt the whole time that he really wanted to say something else but felt constrained to somehow deliver some performance piece that played up to RMoney/Ryan. That’s just my take, however. I really don’t know.
Maybe I’m just so frickin’ tired of the total bullshit on display at these conventions that I found Eastwood’s monologue somewhat of a breath of fresh air… at any rate: interesting.
Thank you for your intelligent post. I, too, watched Clint’s speech, and felt that he was uncomfortable doing that. He’s always been fortright with his political beliefs, but he’s never been a nasty partisan. And he’s a great filmmaker/actor. Also, apparently he winged a lot of this, and improv and speech making are not Clint’s area of expertise.
Clint did mention some uncomfortable facts. We still have high unemployment, and the war in Afghanistan just drags on and on, and neither party seems to care.
He’s not senile, either. He just completed a new film due out in a few weeks. Can’t be senile and act/produce a movie.
Hair Club for men? Hair Plugs? Toupee ?
I don’t totally disagree with you, either. See my post @17. I think the speech failed, but it was, for me, rather interesting in its own flawed way. Not Eastwood’s best delivery; certainly did nothing to explain how RMoneyRyan would do better than Obama.
I don’t feel Eastwood was drunk or struggling with dementia. Just didn’t do a great job, to say the least. But hey! It was damned interesting.
It was interesting. And it was kind of cool to see something go wrong in a convention. They’re usually bore fests, choreographed down to the last detail.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for the reminder about what Eastwood stated about the War in Afghanistan (which an Obamabot friend of mine just recently informed me is “no longer a War.” Hey: how nifty is that???/s). Yet again, however, Eastwood provided no proof that RMoney – despite some flip-flopping statment he apparently made – would actually, you know, end the War in Afghanistan.
I would have to agree that Improv is not Eastwood’s forte. I have been caring for many elderly relatives and friends of relatives. I’m no doctor, but generally I can pick out the beginnings of dementia or Alz pretty quickly. No proof, but I don’t think Eastwood is senile. And I am looking forward to his next film! Yay, he’s acting in it, too.
LOL! I love Tom Tomorrow! hilarious
Stirring the Pot would be a good plan but who in their right mind would want voters talking about how off Clint looked? How confused, lost and or drunk, demented etc.
If Clint stirred the pot by lying, saying racist, anti Women, anti Gay anti illegal immigrant stuff the GOP would eat it up.
When Clint spoke about subjects Lefties care about how was that suppose to make Mitt look good when Clint provided no explanation why Mitt would be better on these issues?
Clint’s speech helped Mitt not at all with his base and didn’t do enough to convince us to support Mitt.
Stirring the pot is good if people talk about the speech not if they talk about how out of it Clint looked.
I think we’re mostly on the same page. I just liked it; didn’t think Eastwood looked drunk or whatever. Not his area of expertise; probably conflicted about the message to deliver.
Again: was it deliberate to distract the rubes from the horror that’s RMoney??? It’s possible, and if so, it worked.
Ok. Enough of this topic.
It was interesting but Clint is a great actor so when he flubs the delivery that bad people do wonder. But I admit he just may suck at improv acting and given his hesitation speaking I think he very well might have been making up the speech as he talked.
He didn’t flub his delivery. He simply delivered what a lot of people on both sides of the political ‘spectrum’ did not want to hear. Bravo, Clint!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/two-cheers-for-clint-eastwood.html
Agree, and disagree with TCU @ 10 saying “Maybe Clint is just a read the script guy with no improv chops” since Eastwood plays jazz piano (good enough for the movie soundtrack on one of his blockbuster hits).
He has more performance/acting/marketing experience than everyone in that house combined, plus talent to spare.
At the outset he made it clear that he’s “conservative” and added that most conservatives in Hollywood keep their politics quiet. In a musical or dramatic composition, that would serve as the exposition, so there would be no ‘political’ development, resolution, denouement or crescendo.
I watched his performance only once, here at FDL, many days later after reading tons of comments that mocked him.
I can’t stand Eastwood, and never could. A few months ago at Pebble Beach he talked easily on teevee, and appeared to have complete control of all his faculties.
His hair was standing up in the back at the convention, maybe he had just taken off a headphone set, listening to the convention on-air audio? listening to jazz? listening to his pre-recorded script one last time before ‘Action!’?
I wouldn’t take much solace in Clint’s bad perf. most Reptiles thought he was just vunderbar that evening, take a listen to Limpdong radio and you’ll see what I mean.
If Clint had made an argument that Mitt would deliver on this and every other thing Obama had failed on then it would have been a Very interesting speech. We would all be wondering if Mitt was shifting policy gears to get Moderate Voters.
We would all be waiting to see if Mitt renounced Clint. We would all be wondering if Clint would apologize to Rush Limbaugh for what he said.
It seems if you are a GOPer who says something politically incorrect for a GOPer you must apologize to Rush.
Popcorn sales nation wide would have spiked:)
I would have been thrilled if Mitt followed up with a faster withdraw plan from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why did Clint mention these topics that appeal to Lefties if Mitt was not going to follow up?
GOP convention speeches are suppose to be coordinated and convey the Candidates Message.
Has Mitt gone Left? If not then why did Clint say what he did say?
I don’t think he’s senile either. He just did a political sketch/performance that wasn’t very good, but was at least interesting.
We are on the same page. Except for the Clint looking off bit. But thats not a deal breaker. I do think that Clint’s delivery was flawed and I was very surprised that it was that bad but again maybe Clint just sucks at improv acting.
Who ever on Mitt’s campaign that approved that speech should be fired unless Mitt really wanted people to think that he was going to move left on the issues Clint talked about.
If that were to happen several GOP heads would explode. We of course would be wondering if we could trust Mitt.
Romney should fire whoever came up with that idea. No one is talking about Mitt’s speech that night. The MSM’s coverage makes it sound like Eastwood was the only speaker that night.
I happen to like Eastwood but respect your take.
I don’t know how good Eastwood is or not at improv; don’t even know if this was “improv,” even though it was stated that it was.
I don’t think GOP voters are swayed one way or the other by it, other than to clap and cheer that an older what guy says he’s a conservative in the liberal bastion of Hollywood.
I do know that Eastwood tends to be socially liberal, a tad like Schwatzenegger (who I dislike). They are both CA Republicans, which means that they tend to be more pro-choice, not quite so bigoted, more supportive of women’s rights, etc. That’s where I think possibly some of the conflict comes thru: Eastwood was speaking to the “values voters” who are batshit crazy extremists. Perhaps Eastwood is a sell-out, but he was, as TCU points out, discussing primarily leftwing concers to a rightwing audience. How he expected MittBot 2012 to solve those problems is beyond my comprehension, but then again, Obama’s not gonna “solve” them either.
Dunno… food for thought.
Yes. My guess is that they probably thought an older Hollywood conservative white guy would “fluff” the audience for Mitt. Eastwood ended up sucking up all the oxygen (no matter how lame the “performance” was) and leaving MittBot languishing outside the spotlight… which is pretty funny, when you think about it.
Eastwood made a point to refer to who-else-but-Romney as “a stellar businessman’ in direct contrast to POTUS “attorneys” who “bifurcate this and bifurcate that”, and finally said to the chair that maybe it’s time to let someone else take over, a businessman, Mr. Romney by name.
He’s old all right, he was already a popular icon when Ike was president, so I’d guess he was selected for something like perspective and possibly because he may be unique as someone who still appeals to every age cohort.
So far the convention has made me more likely to vote Eastwood/Chair than Romney/Ryan, to be sure.
Yes, that, but OTOH, RMoney was graduated from ‘Vard Law, too, albeit he never practiced law. So even that statement was somewhat, uh, disingenuous or conflicted. And to me, claiming that RMoney was a “stellar businessman” was also disingenuous, albeit probably Eastwood didn’t intend that.
Yes, a popular icon who appeals across generations, but a clever shot at dragging in a conservative Hollywood insider. Didn’t work out so great.
heh… me, too! Make my day!
Whatever. Clint didn’t do it for me.
I think it’s just good hair, probably died (I am surprised this is allowed in the “we are all aliens practicing to be gods” religion)