SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Confused, Crass, and Cranky: The Accidental Political Genius...

PLANK AUGUST 31, 2012

Confused, Crass, and Cranky: The Accidental Political Genius of Clint Eastwood

BY CHARLES HOMANS

One of the weirder pathologies of campaign reporting is its tendency to bemoan the scripted nature of modern politics, then react with a mix of anger and confusion when someone actually wanders off the script. The responses to Clint Eastwood’s bizarre, rambling monologue—you couldn’t really call it a speech, could you?—in Tampa last night have been representative: Politico has a good roundup of cable news pundit bafflement, and the Times has the requisite next-day recriminations piece. One unnamed Romney advisor quoted in the Times describes the spectacle as “theater of the absurd,” which was certainly how it looked to me at the time (and apparently to Paul Ryan, who has a great please-let-this-end-soon grimace around minute nine).

When I watched it again this afternoon, however, I began to think that I had Eastwood—well, not all wrong, but partly wrong. It’s still a sad, senescent performance, and one of the most queasily fascinating artifacts of recent American political theater. The joke about Obama telling Romney (we can safely infer, I think) to go fuck himself still crosses a line, though in post-“You lie!” America it’s hard to say where exactly that line is anymore. But as a matter of pure politics—this being a convention, after all—was Eastwood really so terrible?

One of the biggest problems for Romney as a political communicator is the fundamental impossibility of translating the free-floating, inchoate animus toward Obama that Republicans need to harness to win this year into a vocabulary that makes sense coming out of the mouth of a crisp, wonkish managerial type. (See the nonsensical “Obama doesn’t understand America” talking point from early this year.) More base-friendly Republicans have mostly succeeded in translating it into varieties of spittle-flecked rage or outright conspiracism, but it’s hard to see this kind of thing coming across much better with the sliver of voters left to win over in the next two months.

But Eastwood’s performance channeled a gentler, less toxic version of that animus. If the speech that Marco Rubio gave before Eastwood took the stage was a stab at Clinton-style political empathy, Eastwood’s was a far less-common—and presumably accidental—exercise in political sympathy. It was method politics, almost. He embodied the people you would meet on the margins of the early Tea Party rallies: usually older, not terribly politically engaged, unclear on what it was that the stimulus or (later) the Affordable Care Act actually did or didn’t do, but possessed of a deep conviction that things were somehow just going wrong. Sure, most of what he said was daft—“Closing Gitmo—why close that? We spent so much money on it”—but that’s sort of the point. Eastwood, for all his fame and wealth, did not seem of a piece with the Olympians and successful entrepreneurs parading across the stage earlier in the evening. He came across more like a surrogate for a cranky, bewildered swath of America—one whom the Republicans venerated last night, and liberals and journalists are tearing to shreds today. In a different venue, you might call it a solid performance. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 84 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

84 comments

um....no. My mother is 79 and an avid Fox news watcher and Obama hater (natch). She had no idea what in the world Eastwood was up to. I had to explain to her that there was an invisible Obama in the chair he was talking to and that no, he was not senile or demented. At the time I didn't know he was without a script so I myself was wondering why he was hesitating so much. It was a disaster and a sad spectacle.

- blackton

August 31, 2012 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just figure Eastwood did not realize he is not good at improv. I watched it online afterwards, and, discounting his age, it was uneven improv. Eastwood is sure sharp when he does interviews about film. I wonder how many people are now having their own imaginary conversation with Obama and/or Romney, hopefully in the privacy of their own gun room :) In the end, all most people will remember is that Clint Eastwood showed up at the RNC, and not to accept the VP nomination in 1988 (or was it 1992 when Bush41 considered him?) whatever. I'd watch Eastwood watching paint dry.

- K2K

August 31, 2012 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As is so typically the case, the picture editor does a great job. Wonderful image of Clint playing the part of the irascible old coot.

- Haole45

August 31, 2012 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eastwood captured perfectly the state of today's Republican Party: obsessed with an imaginary version of the president. Most of President Obama's positions were held by mainstream Republicans a decade or two ago (think Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and the elder Pres. Bush). Today's Republican Party calls all that left-wing, un-American socialism. Delusional. It doesn't matter who Mitt Romney is, because it doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is; the party is unfit to govern, and will be until it receives a great big "shellacking" from the voters. Even then it may have to wander in the wilderness for a generation until it sheds its Ayn Rand worshipping crazies.

- bjones

August 31, 2012 at 10:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Confused, Crass, and Cranky. Sounds like the Tea Party, all right, and more and more of the mainstream Republicans. Eastwood should have come onstage with teabags dangling from his ears. I remember watching Eastwood as the ramrod Rowdy Yates in "Rawhide" on TV in the Fifties. I've liked him in a lot of movies, especially Play Misty for Me. His performance at the convention was not the most embarrassing part of it for Republicans. I missed Romney's speech (I was watching college football), but I understand the audience members cheered and applauded everything he said, until he acknowledged that the poor should be helped. Then the cheers and applause abruptly stopped. If this really happened, God help us. The base of one of our nation's two most powerful political parties has decided to turn its back on one of the core messages of Christ's teachings. BTW, I'll probably be watching college football during Obama's speech next Thursday, too. College football is my favorite sport. Acceptance speeches are way down the list of my favorite things.

- magboy47.

September 1, 2012 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't mind one second of Eastwood. I was hooked and felt tingles and thrills going up my leg even as Clint and I waited and wondered what he was going to say next and then next after that. All the sanctimonious tut tutting about his naughty, wildly wonderful, totally unorthodox political incorrectness misses that in his utterly human but authoritative way, his authority deriving from his iconicism, he channeled what many Americans feel about Obama but did that without, I'd argue, going over some invisible line, however daringly he edged up to it. He was a refreshing contrast to the necessary piety of these events which finally starts to weigh them down. His presentation, talking to the empty suit in the empty chair, as the metaphoric argument of his presentation has it, lit up the room and, I dare say, lit up those watching, sympathetic to that argument. "Sad," "disastrous": I think not. "Spectaculour," "memorable": more like it.

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uhhm, make that "spectacular."

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are people (perhaps me) posting here who are past the clarity and sense when they should post comments. Perhaps at one point in our lives we displayed useful insight, good moves, and still demonstrate some of the skill and talent we once exhibited, but if observed very long, it all just looks rather sad and inept. Maybe I am just talking about the Republican Party as a whole. Hey guys and gals, sit in the empty chair and listen for a while.

- skahn

September 1, 2012 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey basman - I read a comment elsewhere that paid homage to this Eastwood improv as jazz - and since Clint Eastwood's lesser known talent is in composing jazz-styled music*, now I will watch this bit again. Well, I always watch Eastwood again. He should be starting promo appearances for his new baseball film that seems to delve into ageism. and then everyone will realize he was acting at the RNC, a bit that may set a new Youtube hit record. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Clint_Eastwood to see how many times his scores and songs have been nominated for awards.

- K2K

September 1, 2012 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is the performance bar for Republicans just lying on the ground now? When your only compliments highlight Deranged Harry as not as boring as most of the show, noting that the content was undeniably daft, have the Republicans finally left the sphere of reality? Personally, I wish them safe travels and hope they like lily land because they are not really welcome back. I am sure they will be a lot less angry if everyone is white, males have control over eggs and sperm, being fat is the new black, ATF becomes the name of their convenience stores, and gold buillion is the currency. And it makes this planet a lot more fun for the rest of us.....

- smabry03

September 1, 2012 at 7:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eastwood is a movie actor, not a stage actor. In movies, improvisation is okay, because it can be edited or the actors can do another take. On the stage, improvisation is death, death to the actor doing the improvisation and death to his fellow actors in reacting to it.

- rayward

September 1, 2012 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Last words: I, again, call bullshit on all the pointy headed sanctimony over Eastwood. He drubbed Obama good, took the piss right out of him, and hide bound liberals--I'm liberal too but not hide bound-- want to intellectualize and rationalize the humour and power of what he conveyed, his metaphoric argument so strong that Obama felt he couldn't ignore it, but had to immediately send out a pictorial counter metaphor, "This chair is occupied," which served only to underscore the primary argument. Keep up the tut tutting, and in one instance the rather addled, senescent, ad hominem criticism of the messenger of Eastwood's bad news, it all only illuminates by contrast the deep resonance of Eastwood's performance.

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I lie: can't resist, but at least not my words: ...“Clint Eastwood was a disaster,” Lawrence O’Donnell said. “I thought Clint Eastwood was bizarre,” Ed Schultz said. “It was demeaning to the presidency.” Ha ha ha. That wasn't even a comedy routine (as Eastwood's performance was). ADDED: I hope if anyone does any comedy at the Democratic convention that Ed Schultz will be fair and balanced enough to say it demeans the presidency. Maybe he should be a little more concerned about what demeans journalism. AND: Here's the whole Eastwood performance. Is it really that hard to get? No, they're merely playing dumb (and humorless), even though they want the other party to be known as "the stupid party." UPDATE: I just rewatched the performance. It was great! Hilarious... subtle... well-paced.... The haters are totally bullshitting and playing dumb (assuming they are not actually dumb). And what they are trying to do is scare other celebrities: Toe the line or we will destroy you. That crushing repression is the opposite of what the performing arts should be about. Posted by Ann Althouse at 1:25 PM ...

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as a matter of interest, basman, how was the metaphor of a conversation working out in the scene itself? If you are talking to an imaginary presence (even if that individual exists) it's pretty much identical to rehearsing that dinner party exchange in your head as you drive home -- except this time you have the witty comeback ready. Clint appeared not to have made any attempt to imagine how Obama would respond (as a real stand-up comedian would do) and sort of clumsily wrote a non-existent version of the president into being who, curiously, has no actual answers. That's not satire, that's narcissism. Also, the most important question: Why would anyone even want to go "daringly" up to some "invisible line" when the other side of that line is racist contempt and paranoia?

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just in case you haven't been reading other comments of mine on this broader issue, what I mean is that the other side of your "invisible line" is the fact that a segment of Americans is traumatized/infuriated by the fact that a black couple is having sex in the White House and they want to put that bad dream out of their minds as quickly as possible. Hence the finger-wagging in the face. Hence the "You lie!" bellowing during the State of the Union. Hence the obsession with Michelle Obama's figure. Hence the various fictions about the president's origins. Hence the Eastwood fantasy of patronizingly lecturing Obama on why he should just give up and go -- after all, it was just a kind of silly mistake.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And for the record, none of the above dilutes my admiration for many of his movies as actor and director.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It was almost a Democratic insurgency. "Didn't you ask the Russians how that went?" Talk about being off message. The Neocons must have been hiding under their chairs. Truth is he outshone Romenybot2012X21. Why not put Clint/Reagan Hologram on the ticket? Can't be anymore vacuous than the current one and it would be a hell of a lot more entertaining.

- IggyPop

September 1, 2012 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And even give tingles up the leg!

- Sophia

September 1, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS irony's right guys. There is no precedent that I can recall for the constant disrespect and abuse confronting the Obama's. Basman I totally don't understand you. You live in Canada, claim you're a liberal, and go nuts when people attack Obama, get excited even. Why? You aren't going to be directly affected if Lyin'Ryan and his sidekick win in November. We are. You will however be indirectly affected, especially given their contempt for a) the truth and b) the environment. So I don't get it.

- Sophia

September 1, 2012 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Today's feature at RealClearPolitics, along with this TNR post, has a good thread to accompany the analysis: "The Brilliance of Clint’s Empty Chair by Justin Katz on August 31, 2012 http://oceanstatecurrent.com/opinion/the-brilliance-of-clints-empty-chair/#idc-cover Now that Bill Maher has weighed in, every comic/satirist is now on the hook to either outdo Clint, or ignore him, lest his Empty Chair gets traction. I think most Americans prefer to think no sex is ever allowed in the White House, the unspoken 'Clinton/Kennedy legacy' :)

- K2K

September 1, 2012 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow Sophia - do you not remember the Clinton years? It was gruesome, even more gruesome than Nixon's second term, regarding "constant disrespect and abuse". Any presidential historian would add Jefferson and Lincoln, and Harry S Truman, to the top of the "constant disrespect and abuse" list. Now exiting, stage center! the crabgrass war awaits...somehow shouting "Get off my Lawn" does not seem to work with crabgrass :)

- K2K

September 1, 2012 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think most Americans prefer to think no sex is ever allowed in the White House, the unspoken 'Clinton/Kennedy legacy' :)" You have a point, K2K. But if it is going on, it better damn well be between two white folks, is the rider on that proposition.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*of opposite sexes.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...09/01/2012 - 12:17pm EDT | ironyroad... On the other side of lines, if you go far enough, are extremes. If you want to tell me that a substantial number of Rs comprise your "segment of Americans is traumatized/infuriated by the fact that a black couple is having sex in the White House and they want to put that bad dream out of their minds as quickly as possible," I'll say to that prove it besides pointing to outlier incidents. I'll tell you that Obama doesn't fare worse at the hands of his critics by those who don't like him politically, then 43 did and then did Clinton before him, all the way through his impeachment. I'll say I reject that proposition and say that that Eastwood's performance art had nothing to do with Obama being black and that it's excited reception in the hall and in the country consisted of telling truth to power, as those folks see truth. And I beg to differ Ironyroad as to Eastwood's bit being narcissism rather than comedy. Here's the proof: it had me laughing out loud and engagingly shocked and energized without it changing how I feel and think about Obama, one whit. I typically don't laugh at narcissism but I typically do laugh, not that often do comedians bring me to outright laugher, and Eastwood, no comedian as such, did. I thought, as I repeat now ad naseum, he was hilarious and telling. My suspicion is that your deeply held political prejudices inform your seeming anger (at me, Eastwood, Rs, whomever, your posts to me having, I perceive, the quality of finger pointing hectoring) and your response to Eastwood. To Sophia, I have no need to be understood by you given me being a Canadian liberal or to fit my responses into some category acceptable to you given who you think I might be (for the nano seconds you spend thinking of who I might be.) I here simply honestly stated what I thought of Eastwood and what I thought of some of the reflexive reaction to him.

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not "then did" rather " than did"

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" . . . your deeply held political prejudices" Of course. basman has ideas. The other guys have prejudices. Unless they agree with him, in which case they are ideas. I'm not particularly angry -- as I said to Noga many times, it takes a great deal to get me actually angry at something in the political theater. But to me Eastwood's performance was embarrassing (and would have been in any context, including a Dem event) as it seemed both shambling and to depend on a wildly false, projected image of the president that bears zero relationship to anything I've ever seen him be or do. And seriously, if telling truth to power includes a wealthy and famous actor/director's dismissal of Obama "visiting colleges talking about student loans and stuff like that" as something ludicrously and comically unimportant, then I'd suggest your bar is set pretty low.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And just as a matter of interest, if someone was to go "daringly" up to an "invisible line" on the other side of which was vicious anti-semitism and paranoid hostility towards Jews, would you be talking about it in admiring tones? I beg to doubt it.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eastwood inverted power, chatting with the empty Obama, as he represented himself, unvarnished, having a man-to-man talk with the supposedly powerful president.  Eastwood as icon royalty, asserting himself as a plain spoken man, spoke home, and down home, truths (as he sees the truth)  to the supposedly powerful president.  And under his iconography, Eastwood in his conversational persona merged his plain talk, his speaking of truths (as he sees the truth) with his reputational authenticity, toughness, realness and laconicity.  Iconographically strong and relatively silent, getting done what needs to be done, an understood Hemingwayan pillar of strength and action, not trusting talk, talk, talk, so much talk, Eastwood spoke plainly and haltingly, the words not coming out facilely (contrasted with another guy we know,  who heals planets and orates honorifically, backgrounded by faux Roman columns) to a thin skinned, irritated, sputtering, cursing, impotent, finally virtually silenced, all glib talk gone, Obama, not much there because, as Eastwood sees it, finally, there is, politically, not much there there.  Had this been someone relatively famous and relatively irascible doing the same to Romney or Ryan, the Ds' and their staunch supporters' reflexive sanctimony would be nil. The piece, rather, would have been wildly applauded. So these reflexively sanctimonious implicitly got it stuffed down their throats. And so the celebrity lap dogs, with their tongues panting, trying to get up Obama's ass, trading on their celebrity as the basis  for their politically correct wisdom and judgment, asserting their celebrity as vindicating their politically correct wisdom and judgment, got it handed to them too:  Eastwood was, he said, and I believe he  believes is, a "movie tradesman."

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But if I don't see the "truth" as he sees it, I'm supposed to just swallow the whole deal and applaud? I don't think Eastwood as a plain man, he's actually a famous movie actor/director who plays them. To that extent, if you regard him as acting on the stage last Thursday, then in some ways it was a somewhat unconsciously poignant portrayal of elderly white American guys who just can't understand how this [unspoken: black] guy got to be president. Again, I have to emphasize that the main "politically correct" thing at issue here is that nowadays the key descriptor has to remain unspoken. And I don't see the difference between walking up to the line for American-style racism and walking up to a line with anti-semitism on the other side of it (even if, for may professional pols, it's just a tool for political leverage rather than a deeply-held belief). Hence my question as to whether you'd be ok with that. You said something very funny (and memorable) once hereabouts, about the secret to success in the courtroom in Canada being the rule "Think Yiddish, talk British!" It seems to me that sometimes Obama is very good at thinking black and talking white (which is exactly what infuriates some folks), and I'm curious as to why you don't see the parallels. If you had someone making a public performance that was just this side of a line across from which was a deep hostility towards Jewish-Canadian lawyers as interlopers in the profession and too-clever-by-half rogues, I wonder what your response would be.

- ironyroad

September 1, 2012 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And so the celebrity lap dogs, with their tongues panting, trying to get up Obama's ass, trading on their celebrity as the basis for their politically correct wisdom and judgment, asserting their celebrity as vindicating their politically correct wisdom and judgment, got it handed to them too: Eastwood was, he said, and I believe he believes is, a "movie tradesman." basman, As the election draws closer, your anger seems to be rising. And you're getting a bit crude (read first line above). You're talking very much like the Left loonies that you despise. I agree with you about political correctness. I wrote a book comparing it to fascism. But I avoided scatological references like your quote above. And there's a lot of humor in the book--clean humor (never liked the dirty stuff). The world will not end if Obama gets re-elected. It almost did when Bush got a second term, but it didn't. Yes, Obama can be glib for political purposes, but he's also genuine. He repeatedly admits mistakes that he has made, unlike his buffoon of a predecessor (near the end of his presidency Bush finally admitted something that he regretted--that there were no WMD's in Iraq!). Despite his human and political flaws, Obama did something great. He kept America and Canada and the rest of the world from sliding into the black hole of another Great Depression. At least give him as much credit for leading the country and the world as you give Eastwood for his performance onstage in Tampa. If Eastwood is a giant in the entertainment business (and he is), then Obama should at least be visible in the business of politics. He's much more than a glib nonentity.

- magboy47.

September 1, 2012 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found the Clint show at the conventions as tedious as the convention itself. The best quip attacking the convention I read said that it was a throwback to the days of "Black and White TV" Brilliant.

- arnon1

September 1, 2012 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Playwrights use an empty chair to bring a missing character into the scene. Worth coming back just to read basman's take, and, yes, Estwood deliberately introduced himself as a "movie tradesman" He is as down to earth as you can be despite his incredible range of talents, of which acting is the lesser. Far better director and composer, imo. I did not get hooked on Eastwood until "Unforgiven", transformative western, but I do understand how having been the Cowboy with no name is a building block of his current iconic position. I am no longer sure how much was improv. Maybe he plays such a character in his new movie opening on Sept. 21, which seems to explore age and work, but I am thrilled it is also a baseball movie (I have never been able to see Clooney's "Up in the Air" because I have been traumatized by multiple downsizings). He sure was not playing any character I have ever seen him play, but it was interesting which topics he chose to ask. My goodness, maybe he is getting the email invites to Dinner with Barack, and imagines what he would talk about at such a dinner. irony, I do not think anyone in America can believe Eastwood was, in reality, or as part of the character he was playing, as racist. His current wife, since 1996, is about as multi-culti-racial as is possible. from wiki: "...Dina Ruiz [Eastwood] was born in Castro Valley, a community within the East Bay area of northern California. Her father, who was adopted by a Portuguese American/Puerto Rican family named Ruiz,[2][3] was of African American and Japanese American descent; and her mother is of Irish, English, and German descent..." I'll let basman straighten out the record on who gets credit for keeping "...America and Canada and the rest of the world from sliding into the black hole of another Great Depression..." My recollection is that Canada had the most solid banking system in the world and weathered the 4Q2008 crisis very well, except maybe for some of the more than one million American manufacturing jobs that had migrated to Canada after NAFTA. in the USA, more credit goes to Sheila Bair and Ben Bernanke, and, in the row? Angela Merkel. and China and Brazil and India for sustaining growth. Somewhere, Dems are trying to figure out how to flip Angelina Jolie :)

- K2K

September 1, 2012 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman- I agree that the reaction to Eastwood's act has been overwrought. That reaction has mostly been by the media, which thrives on creating controversy at every turn. But your admiration of it is baffling. Even most of the Republican establishment, including Ann Romney, found it to be embarrassing. I won't waste time challenging all of your laudatory descriptions of it, but particularly baffling is your characterization of it as "speaking truth to power." Speaking truth to power entails at least two elements: (1) speaking truth; and (2) speaking to power. About all I can remember Eastwood saying is that Obama has not closed gitmo and has not ended the war in Afghanistan. I suppose those points are true, and a lot of people of all political stripes are disappointed about those things. But where was the "power"? Obama was not there, and Eastwood's imagined Obama did not remotely resemble the real Obama. But what made the act offensive to people on both sides of the aisle is that Eastwood characterized the imaginary Obama's only responses as being to tell Eastwood and Romney to go fuck themselves. That is neither clever nor courageous. If Obama really would have been there, he would have chewed Eastwood up and spat him out. Dhurtado

- NR143296

September 1, 2012 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dhurtado you are confused here on a few counts. Eastwood's was not an objective analysis. It was performance art trying to convey Eastwood's feelings about, anger with, frustration with, Obama, I.E., the TRUTH AS HE SEES IT. You and others want to criticize him because you, as you see things, You disagree with Eastwood. But your disagreement is beside my point and Eastwood's point. Your criticism is akin to criticizing well done, let's just say well done, satire because you agree with the subject of the satire. For those reasons your concluding comment is misconceived and betrays your confusion here: " If Obama really would have been there, he would have chewed Eastwood up and spat him out." So would any smart politician, likely, debating policy with an actor or comedian. But when Obama debates Romney, he won't, obviously, chew him and spit him out. And that latter is called apples and apples.

- basman

September 1, 2012 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not confused Basman. I don't agree with you that Eastwood's act was well-done satire. I don't even agree that it was satire (though I agree that Eastwood was trying to be funny). I thought it was clumsy and lacked creativity. If it was satire, I am at a loss as to what he was satirizing. That said, you are completely free to regard Eastwood's act as being high art. Arguing about subjective perceptions of performance art is a fool's errand. But your claim that I am criticizing Eastwood because I disagree with him is baseless. As I already noted, I agree with his frustration that Obama has not closed gitmo or gotten us out of Afghanistan. Those are the only points I recall him making. But exactly what point does it make to characterize Obama as telling him to fuck himself? I'm not buying into all the racial stuff, at least in Eastwood's case, but a lot of people on all sides found it to be disprectful of the office of the President. If you did not find it disrespectful, fine. But your condescending characterizations of those who did are not well-taken. Finally, I agree that my point about a debate between Eastwood and Obama is not appropos to Eastwood's actual presentation, which was an attempt at comedy at Obama's expense. But I am responding to your claim that he was "speaking truth to power." Speaking truth to power means standing up to power. It implies courage. It implies the willingness to meet power face-to-face. Whatever else Eastwood was doing, he was not speaking truth to power. Dhurtado

- NR143296

September 2, 2012 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/08/08/eastwoods-baseball-film-trailer-released/ looks like Eastwood's aging baseball scout character has vision problems, and a plotline that seems to be Moneyball2.0 with a Bull Durham sub-plot (Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake). I just read his wiki bio, and I assume most of Hollywood is still in shock, as are all of the Santorum wing of the GOP. Eastwood really is an independent thinker - hurrah, also not a college graduate. Had no idea he turned down James Bond, following Sean Connery, and that he is adored in France. I think Eastwooding is eventually going to come to define a new political party in America - the era of fiscal conservatives has arrived. He is known for always coming in under budget - he prefers to use the first, loosely rehearsed, take. http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/09/01/obamas-skin/2/ as one rebuttal to irony's theory.

- K2K

September 2, 2012 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I want to back away from piling on basman over this -- I don't understand all his recent peeves and concerns, I don't get the "speaking truth to power" thing (imo more like a "remember smart comeback after dinner party" thing), but he's a recognizably individual contributor to this board who has often had very good things to say. But I'd like to point up something a little different. Not taking on anyone in particular. I watched Invictus with a friend this evening -- just a coincidence, she had it on dvd and I'd never seen it. It's a picture of a remarkable moment in modern South African history, but it's not sloppy or sentimental in that it sticks remarkably well to the facts. The dvd also had a brief review of Eastwood's movies over the decades. I was struck by the Dirty Harry clip and the Grand Torino clip. I want to emphasize that I know that Clint is a political conservative and he has no obligation to translate fictional characters or situations into real life. But the scene from Dirty Harry when Callahan says "Are you feeling lucky today?" That's Obama when Bin Laden was just getting ready for another jihad evening in the compound. The whole auto industry backstory in Grand Torino. That's the connection between work and pride and targeted aid that |Obama was trying to make with the rescue plan. Also: Obama sinking the ball with that one shot on the basketball court at the army base in Iraq in 2008 -- I mean, come on. Clint could have made a feature movie out of that. Obama's understanding of the complexities of war and the responsibilities of command -- Eastwood has recently made two significant movies on that theme. To put it bluntly, there is more of classic Clint Eastwood style and values in Barack Obama than there is in three Mitt Romneys put together. To my mind, Obama is the one with "reputational authenticity, toughness, realness and laconicity" (not sure of that last word but I like it). So I'm saying, Clint, man I love you and what you've done, but really . . . ?

- ironyroad

September 2, 2012 at 1:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"To put it bluntly, there is more of classic Clint Eastwood style and values in Barack Obama than there is in three Mitt Romneys put together." Really good point, irony. Romney had the guts to take over companies while at Bain, when the game was rigged in his favor. But would he have the courage to stake the chance for his re-election on the Bin Laden operation? I can't imagine it. He wants to be president much more desperately than Obama does.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 3:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'll let basman straighten out the record on who gets credit for keeping "...America and Canada and the rest of the world from sliding into the black hole of another Great Depression..." My recollection is that Canada had the most solid banking system in the world and weathered the 4Q2008 crisis very well..." K2K, Nobody weathers a Great Depression very well. The Soviet Union came through the first one in the best shape of all the industrialized nations, but it had to slowly starve to death millions of slave laborers and out-and-out starve millions more peasants to eliminate them as eaters in order to survive the economic chaos of the Thirties. 4Q2008 was not a Great Depression. During the early Thirties 7 people starved to death in Detroit every week. And there were long soup lines in every city in America--and in Canada, too.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 3:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't see the Eastwood performance Thursday. I was watching Washington State get beat up by a Mormon college, BYU, in Provo. Loved it (I'm a hardcore Washington Husky fan--don't like the WSU Cougars). I did see one clip of the act the next day, where Eastwood said something like, "Shut up, this is my time." I didn't know he was talking to the chair. I thought maybe a Democrat had sneaked into the auditorium and was heckling him. Some people have criticized the talk-show hosts on MSNBC for piling on Eastwood, which they did. What's forgotten is that a panel of MSNBC hosts and some outside guests all agreed that Romney made a very good acceptance speech, in which he displayed his humanity. They said he was short on details, but I imagine Obama will be, too, come Thursday--much to his detriment. I'll be watching football again, not Obama, Thursday. Political acceptance speeches usually contain nothing of substance. But will Fox News still praise Obama's offering as a very good speech? Stay tuned.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 3:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But when Obama debates Romney he won't, obviously, chew him up and spit him out." Ya think, Basman? It doesn't seem so obvious to me. I mean, yes, Obama won't literally chew Mitt up and spit him out, but I'll lay you two to one that at leadt once during the debates Obama will dance circles around Romney and make him look like a heartless, flat-footed stooge. Besides, in accusing Duharto of missing the point, you missed the point yourself. The point is not that had Obama actually been seated in that chair he'd have run circles around ole Clint--tho we all seem to agree on that point--it's that by "satirically" imagining that the president's comebacks would be limited to "Go fuck yourself", Eastwood and the Republicans who laugh with him reveal their own limitations much more than they reveal Obama's.

- AaronW

September 2, 2012 at 7:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: Eastwood was vilified by the Left for "Gran Torino", because Walt Kowalski was seen as a politically incorrect racist. The absence of Academy Award nominations was a very big smackdown. I consider GT his greatest film, a complex, layered story where one theme is what has gone wrong in America with de-industrialization, and a bigger theme grapples with immigration. Eastwood was vilified by the Right for "Million Dollar Baby" because it seemed to condone euthanasia. Which is why I wrote " I assume most of Hollywood is still in shock, as are all of the Santorum wing of the GOP. " Guess y'all just can't break the meme that the entire GOP is solely composed of racist extremists. I'm just glad we all got a few days off from the alleged "war on women". Now, please bring David Mamet into the mix.

- K2K

September 2, 2012 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Eastwood was vilified by the Left for 'Gran Torino', because Walt Kowalski was seen as a politically incorrect racist. The absence of Academy Award nominations was a very big smackdown." I'll call b.s. on that, K2K. Hollywood LOVES characters like Walt Kowalski who start off as cranky, politically incorrect racists but by movie's end see the light, do the right thing, embrace the other and, as in Walt's case, sacrifice themselves in the process. 'Gran Torino' didn't get any Oscar nominations because it was sentimental, overdetermined, wildly implausible piece o' crap.

- AaronW

September 2, 2012 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just watched Eastwood's convention bit on YouTube. (The convention didn't air here in Australia, tho Clint's "speech" has gotten a fair bit of bemused/amused tv coverage.) The thing that most struck me about it, about the first half at least, was that he seemed to be attacking Obama for taking positions with which Republicans agree. I mean, ridiculing the president for supporting the war in Afghanistan? "Maybe you should'a checked with the Russians..."?!? Seriously? Does Eastwood realize who started the war in Afghanistan and why? Doubtful, since he doesn't understand his own party's candidate's position on the war. Eastwood made fun both of Obama's support for the war and his (highly popular) plan for scheduled withdrawal comparing it unfavorably with Romney's suggestion that we just bring the troops home tomorrow seemingly without recognizing Romney's sarcasm and that in fact the GOP candidate takes the (highly unpopular) position that we should continue the war indefinitely. I suppose none of this should surprise me. If Romney was on record going back twenty years saying that his favorite color was orange, a claim backed up by hundreds of photos of Romney in orange sweaters, wearing orange neckties and sailing his yacht with an orange spinnaker, and then if a poll came out finding that 60% of Americans say they could never vote for a candidate who wore orange clothing, Romney would run TV ads claiming that behind the closed doors of the White House, Obama liked to strut around in an orange zoot suit while Michelle cavorted in orange lingerie.

- AaronW

September 2, 2012 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

too subtle malahat :) btw, that implied 'go f yourself' was derived from "Gran Torino's Walt Kowalski's barber shop session on how to talk like a regular guy. "...Gran Torino was a critical and commercial success, grossing nearly $270 million worldwide (making it Eastwood's most successful film ever...Gran Torino was recognized by the American Film Institute as one of the Ten Best Films of 2008.[49] Clint Eastwood's performance has also garnered recognition. He won an award for Best Actor from the National Board of Review,[50] he was nominated for the Broadcast Film Critics Association (Critics' Choice Awards) and by the Chicago Film Critics Association Awards for Best Actor.[51][52] An original song from the film, "Gran Torino", was nominated for the Golden Globe Awards for Best Original Song. The music is Jamie Cullum, Kyle Eastwood, and Michael Stevens, with Cullum penning the lyrics, although Eastwood composed and performed the title track to the film.[53] The Art Directors Guild nominated Gran Torino in the contemporary film category.[54] The film, however, was ignored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the 81st Academy Awards when it was not nominated for a single Oscar, which led to heated criticism from many who felt that the Academy had also deliberately snubbed Revolutionary Road, The Dark Knight and Changeling (which Eastwood also directed) from the five major categories.[55][56] In 2010, the film was named Best Foreign Film at the César Awards in France.[57] ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Torino

- K2K

September 2, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What might be forgotten here is Eastwood's recent ad celebrating the revival of the Big Three automakers, whose bailout Romney opposed. I wonder why Eastwood didn't mention that onstage Thursday in Tampa. Perhaps because he couldn't tell Romney to "do that to himself."

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gran Torino was indeed widely lauded by critics--which is why I was so puzzled and disappointed when I watched it and saw that it was conceived at the level of an after-school special. The critics were over-enamored of the tough-guy-star-turned-auteur angle. I agree that there was nothing overtly racist about Eastwood's speech, but ask yourself this: has there been another president whom it would be considered acceptable to depict as sitting down being lectured to like a naughty student and asked to step aside?

- AaronW

September 2, 2012 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The more I think about it the more it seems that the best adjective to describe Eastwood's performance is neither confused, crass, nor cranky but another C-word: chickenshit. It is as if before the Rumble in the Jungle  some washed up boxing commentator stood over an empty stool and pretended to tell Muhammed Ali all the ways that George Foreman was going to kick his ass. 

- AaronW

September 2, 2012 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...but I think it still would have been gratuitously coarse and disrespectful." Not in the case of G.W. Bush, malahat. Nixon had a high IQ. He just had severe emotional problems. Bush has an empty head. He would have been perfect in an empty chair. I don't think there's any reason to respect him at all as a president. I have nothing against thought-challenged people, unless they want to be president. Bush knew he wasn't qualified for the job, but he took it anyway. And America is much the worse for it. I actually felt sorry for Nixon--after he resigned. The feelings that he expressed for his mother in his resignation speech moved me. His mother was the reason he so desperately wanted to be president. His father was a failed businessman, and he wanted very badly to show her that he could be a great success. Ultimately, that need turned him into a great failure. Oh, the tricks that life can play on you! Even Tricky Dick!

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Obama is now on the record as not offended, perhaps it is time for all his hyper-sensitive supporters to move on. 09/02/2012 - 4:47pm EDT | AaronW "...but ask yourself this: has there been another president whom it would be considered acceptable to depict as sitting down being lectured to like a naughty student and asked to step aside?" YES. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/08/the-long-history-of-americans-debating-empty-chairs/ "...it turns out that the history of debating empty chairs is a rich one, stretching back to at least 1924 when Progressive vice-presidential nominee Burton K. Wheeler took a stab at an invisible President Calvin Coolidge. ..." More recently, in 2010, the GOP nominee for US Senate who was running against Schumer in NY carried around a lifesize photo of Schumer who was refusing to even acknowledge he was on the ballot in 2010, let alone had a challenge. Schumer was embarrassed enough to finally agree to a one hour debate that was not widely broadcast in NY - only some cable channels here and there. But, before Schumer finally agreed to that one hour debate, I thought that was extremely disrespectful of Schumer, and he lost my vote, also because he had been protecting the tax rates of private equity sharks as the "Senator FOR Wall Street" as the New York Times labelled Schumer in their 2009 business section series on the financial meltdown, "The Reckoning".

- K2K

September 2, 2012 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat - hope your peonies are thriving! Forget Nixon. I am having trouble blocking the image of someone having an imaginary conversation with LBJ sitting on his toilet! I think that was described in detail in Caro's "Master of the Senate" - how LBJ forced his aides to hold conversations whilst...

- K2K

September 2, 2012 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One "truth" is -- and I think Clint Eastwood knows this -- that it is much more likely that Obama, had he been in that chair, would have responded, not with expletives, but by noting his admiration for CE as an actor and director and accepting his right to disagree with him on politics and policy in any reasonable way he thought fit.

- ironyroad

September 2, 2012 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"One "truth" is -- and I think Clint Eastwood knows this -- that it is much more likely that Obama, had he been in that chair, would have responded, not with expletives, but by noting his admiration for CE as an actor and director and accepting his right to disagree with him on politics and policy in any reasonable way he thought fit." Of all the comments on this thread, irony, you said it best.

- magboy47.

September 2, 2012 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat - now I have peony envy! You have to read "Master of the Senate" The first 100 pages are the best historical evolutionary explanation of how the US Senate works. Reminds me that volume 4 is now available. It will be interesting to see how Caro covers LBJ and Israel's 1967 war. LBJ had hooked up with New York Jews (labor) in the 1930's when he was in the House. ok, I admit to still recovering from learning that it was Dewey who insisted on a GOP plank in 1948 to recognize Israel, and Truman had to follow. And do not remember David McCullough including that sidebar. Such as nice evening - David Denby posted a blog 'in defense of Eastwood' at The New Yorker, and thoughtfully included the link to his 2010 report on Eastwood's career and films. Such a nice re-read. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/08/100308fa_fact_denby?currentPage=all and the conclusion, included here because now I have to re-watch that barbershop scene on 'how to talk like a regular guy' to see if that bit of Walt Kowalski is the bit most are criticizing: "...Part of Eastwood’s late curiosity has been directed at new aspects of himself, a superb animal inexorably growing older. Rather than fight his years, Eastwood has explicitly dramatized aging—the slowing of reflexes, the hardening of perception and will. Back in 1993, with “In the Line of Fire,” he managed, in the midst of a first-rate thriller (directed by Wolfgang Petersen), to suggest that men his age compensate for perceived weakness by overly focussing on the task at hand—a fresh insight. He didn’t revive Dirty Harry, who would have been a grimly witty old party, but Walt Kowalski, the irascible retired auto worker in “Gran Torino” (2008), is a variation on Callahan. Living in a house outside Detroit, next door to a family of Hmong refugees, Kowalski is indecently hostile—“gooks” and “slopes” are among his daily epithets—but, by degrees, he becomes impressed with the family’s insistence on discipline, and rouses himself to protect it. Who can doubt that Eastwood’s shift from loathing to compassion was an oblique rejection of the endless American rancor over immigration? The man who once walked away at the end was now gravely taking responsibility for everything, a development that was enlarged in “Invictus.” As Kowalski, Eastwood literally growled, as if teasing his limits as an actor, but Kowalski is also a true terror. Eastwood’s skull stood out from beneath his skin; his eyes were like smoldering coals. He was never a more dominating star." So looking forward to his interviews - will he ever reveal the amalgam of characters he was portraying?

- K2K

September 3, 2012 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I felt embarrassed for Eastwood, and changed the channel because I couldn't watch it anymore. As to the racial angle, I don't see it. Some opposition to Obama has racial overtones to it, especially within the Tea party. But let's leave Clint Eastwood out of it. The man is no racist, and his life's work is a testament to that fact. He does have a record we can judge him by. Though a registered Republican, I know he is more libertarian than he is conservative. Which makes me wonder why he would publicly align himself with this current GOP that's completely driven by their fringe elements.

- scrubby

September 3, 2012 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just to be absolutely clear, I don't think that Clint Eastwood is any kind of racist. For my part at least, I was trying to figure out the "not quite over the line" comment by basman -- it seems to me that there is that line, and in Obama's case that racially tinged contempt (again, not Eastwood's deal) can be found the other side of it. Otherwise, your last question is intriguing -- why, indeed?

- ironyroad

September 3, 2012 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone who loves jazz like Eastwood does is not a racist.

- magboy47.

September 3, 2012 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Commercial break during the "Crazy about Clint" movie marathon on AMC channel today, previously scheduled, all 1960's-70's westerns. Scrubby's question is meaningful as to the "publicly align" point. Otherwise, even this GOP is the natural party for a small government fiscal conservative, as difficult as it is to stand next to the SoCons. My guess is it was too tempting to act the part of the media stereotype of the "old white male Tea Party" Also, as he is an intimate of California politics, I assume Eastwood knows the Blue State fiscal model is a failure, and can not stand to see the same fiscal failure at the Federal level.

- K2K

September 3, 2012 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "There is no precedent that I can recall for the constant disrespect and abuse confronting the Obama's." Have you not read Ken Starr's report? And if you were a Bush supporter you would have made the exact same complaint at what was coined as Bush derangement syndrome. "a black couple having sex in the WH"??? This sounds almost paranoiac. Ironyroad, can you honestly claim that the entire anti-Obama criticism can be reduced to this base anxiety? (It's a rhetorical question. Of course you think so. It was obvious from the way you so passionately argued that Marty Peretz was being racist when he suggested that Obama was, or had to be, educated by his military experts. That was as clear cut a case of racism as a dog whistle for you.) I'm rather enjoying looking at all these so-called liberals (not you, irony, I consider you a bona fide liberal with a large blind spot where Obama is concerned, why, I don't really know) huffing and puffing with indignation because someone made rather pointed and welcome fun of Obama. The genuinely liberal chatterers would have enjoyed the humour and then shrugged it off as an original moment in the history of presidential campaigns. A Shakespearean comic relief, if you will. I'm curious to see if the organizers of the Democratic convention will ignore it, or try to reciprocate (I'm hoping for it) and if they do, will they manage to pull it off good-natured and inclusively or in a mean-spirited manner as some of the comments here are. Like this: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/snl-spoofs-obama

- noga1

September 3, 2012 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have not seen Clint's, er, "unique" (Ann Romney's word) performance art. I have enjoyed the comments - basman's "truth to power" and "satire" baffled me, but then I am easily baffled, especially about things I know nothing about. I also did not see any other of the Convention speeches, so have no way of judging, first hand, whether Clint's performance enhanced or diminished the proceedings. Based on the comments - here and those of the punditocracy - it would seem to me that the speech might well have not been successful in at least two things that the Convention is supposed to do. First, convert. Basman aside, comments on Clint's performance line up with stated or assumed political positions. This is not to say that we all necessarily put our brains in a jar by the door during election season; only that Clint's performance/stunt, whatever its merits, does not appear to have been first rate advocacy. Again, purely based on second hand analysis, he did not say anything to the supporters of Obama they did not already know; and he does not appear to have provided a new critical commentary that would make the "power" pay attention to the "truth" he was setting out. And so, everyone pretty much left his speech where they were. Whatever its merit as Art, it appears, on evidence here, to have failed on that score. Whether it resonated more broadly, the polls will tell us, but I suspect they will confirm that Clint confirmed political biases/positions/prejudices and no more. Second, stay on message. The message at the Convention was not just that Obama is a failure, but that Romney is the next Great Hope, or whatever. Evidence suggestst that on that score, even the keynote speaker was a failure - but at least Christie has a political agenda of his own. Clint's performance made the performance the topic of next days' conversations, not Romney, not the Ryan Budget, not Medicare, and not even Afghanistan or Gitmo, as incoherent as these might well seem in this Convention. Now, there would be nothing wrong with this if the performance was good in respect of the first point. That is, if the performance proves resonant in public - assuming the sample here does not accurately reflect the average Ohio voter - then the fact that the performance stole the show, in a sense, and made itself, rather than Romney, the centre of the show, would actually be a Good Thing. (Polls are out and, somewhat predictably, Romney's own speech resonated only with the base.) Who knows; it might yet become an iconic moment and, on that basis, an overall positive for Romney. Ann's reaction suggests otherwise, however.

- icarus-r

September 3, 2012 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How true. Obama was the previous "next great hope" and now "Romney is the next Great Hope". All par for the course:) Welcome back, icarusr.

- noga1

September 3, 2012 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could have sworn that in the eight years before Obama, the Blue State fiscal model was not seen at the federal level, rather it was the Red State fiscal model that got practiced unimpeded. (with reconciliation and all that) It practically brought us to our knees, k2k. If that wasn't a spectacular failure, I don't know what is. It's a myth that the Republicans practice small govt fiscal policy. That's all they preach, but they never practice it. Ever!! Since Reagan, the Democrats have a significantly better fiscal policy: Clinton balanced the budget. And Obama? If you exclude the Bush recession-induced stimulus spending, he has a relatively slower pace of spending growth than Reagan and both Bushes. If Eastwood's beef is with Obama's economy, then he must be suffering from willful amnesia. That's because he should know that Obama have created more private sector jobs in the last two years than the "small govt conservatives" created in their eight years before Obama. One wouldn't know that from all the noise generated by the mythical small govt fiscal types. Maybe, Eastwood, a man I adore, is getting old. He seemed confused on that stage in Tampa Bay.

- scrubby

September 4, 2012 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "can you honestly claim that the entire anti-Obama criticism can be reduced to this base anxiety?" No, and I'm not claiming it. I'm being lurid with a purpose. Nonetheless, I agree that I have a tendency to reduce politics to visceral feelings and reactions, and that's not always acceptable. But sometimes it is. I'd say that there is a racial element -- as indeed Chris Hitchens also noted a couple of years ago -- to negative attitudes to the president, most of which are not based in anything remotely like fact.

- ironyroad

September 4, 2012 at 3:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this thread is like reading the palestinian narrative in some ways. but, one last time: Clint Eastwood was acting a part at the RNC. He was acting out the stereotype that liberals have of the TEA Party, which continues to be a movement focussed on fiscal issues.

- K2K

September 4, 2012 at 6:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the surprise guest at the Democratic convention: we will have Chris Rock lecturing an empty suit.

- bjones

September 4, 2012 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scrubby: "It's a myth that the Republicans practice small govt fiscal policy." An op-ed in the WSJ found that on average, Republican presidents have expanded entitlement spending by 8% a year more than Democratic presidents. The author concluded that both parties were at fault and that there needs to be a change in the culture of Washington, or some such bromide. Conclusion aside, the numbers were telling. In any event, as a matter of public policy, surely there is no greater raid on the public purse, and no greater demonstration of cynical public policy than Medicare Part D, and especially the provision that prohibits the federal government to use its leverage to reduce drug prices. That alone should disqualify Republicans from public office for at least a generation, on the basis of both bad public policy and harm to the fiscal health of the nation. As an aside, the reaction to the findings - at least the first part of the article was purely factual and historical - on the comments page was fascinating. One commenter was aghast that the WSJ was publishing the views of "the other side". Another attacked the writer as being a liberal progressive hack. And so on.

- icarus-r

September 4, 2012 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "Clint Eastwood was acting a part at the RNC. He was acting out the stereotype that liberals have of the TEA Party, which continues to be a movement focussed on fiscal issues." Two questions. First, do you mean that Clint's performance was a parody of Democratic stereotypes? At least one person - Ann Romney - did not see it that way. And, just so that we are on the same page here - this is the same Tea Party that is being courted by Paul "Mediscare" Ryan? You know, the one who goes around telling seniors that Romney will restore the ACA's "cuts" to Medicare? The same people who hold up signs, "stop raiding my Medicare for socialised medicine"? Fiscal issues, eh? Second, a lot of people - here and on The American Conservative, hardly a bastion of progressive spendthrifts - mentioned something about Clint's reference to Gitmo and Afghanistan: on this latter, he apparently implied that Obama somehow is responsible for the war there - something about consulting the Russians - and criticised Obama's notional date of withdrawal (contradictory statements, but I didn't see him make it, so perhaps I am mistaken). Was that a parody of a Democratic stereotype as well? Relationship with fiscal issues? Do Tea Partiers believe that Gitmo should have been closed down, or that the Afghanistan war was unjustified - or, rather, was justified if pursued by Bush, but unjustified if pursued by Obama? As I said, I have not seen Clint's great satiric Truth to Power Performance Art, and so I should appreciate very much any light you could shed on this.

- icarus-r

September 4, 2012 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: Thanks. Anyone who failed to listen to Obama, and to the Republicans, carefully during the campaign was bound to come away, a year later, utterly angry, confused or disappointed, probably all three. I agree that many people unreasonably expected Obama to perform acts that a demi-God would have found challenging; I have no doubt that Obama himself never quite understood the depth of hatred towards him until the debt crisis. Then again, Bill Clinton, for all his political acumen, never saw the Starr Report and impeachment coming, so even a consummate political operator in the second term of his presidency is liable to self-deception on certain scores.

- icarus-r

September 4, 2012 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hey icarus: Get off my lawn :) end of discussion - only those who took the time to watch Eastwood merit answers to their questions. Now that the DNC platform has changed policy on Israel, no need for me to pay more attention to the Obama-incarnation of what used to be the Democratic Party that I always voted for before the Age of Obama-Pelosi, clueless about anything related to reality, and not even caring. exiting stage right. Mamet was so correct - the Democratic Party is now a party of condescending elites and their underclass.

- K2K

September 4, 2012 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is really really hard to accept Obama's protestations that he is a friend of Israel, when, under his guidance, "Language calling for Jerusalem to be recognized as the capital of Israel has been omitted from the 2012 Democratic Party platform. [-] That language has been replaced by a broader statement about unshakable U.S. support for the Jewish state — with no mention of Jerusalem at all. The statement also omits previously included language about Palestinian refugees and the designed terrorist group Hamas." http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/jerusalem-capital-plank-not-included-in-dnc-platform-134317.html In the meantime, in Iran, "Enrichment is accelerating, the warhead is taking shape, a nuclear trigger is deep in development, and the Shahab-3 missile has Israel in range and can detonate in an airburst 600 meters above ground — just like the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki" Let's recall how the Iranian regime positioned the matter of Jerusalem, somewhat, I'd say, less delicately from the Obama administration's choice of expression (selective mutism): "Later, he cites Khomeini: “The Imam said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’” Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: “This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.” Later he adds, “Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.” This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel." http://limewoody.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/memri-the-role-of-holocaust-denial-in-the-ideology-and-strategy-of-the-iranian-regime/

- noga1

September 4, 2012 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the meantime, in Iran, "Enrichment is accelerating, the warhead is taking shape, a nuclear trigger is deep in development, and the Shahab-3 missile has Israel in range and can detonate in an airburst 600 meters above ground — just like the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki" Interesting, the coincidence of these two occurrences almost simultaneously. Let's recall how the Iranian regime positioned the matter of Jerusalem, somewhat, I'd say, less delicately from the Obama administration's choice of expression (selective mutism): "Later, he cites Khomeini: “The Imam said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’” Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: “This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.” Later he adds, “Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.” This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel." http://limewoody.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/memri-the-role-of-holocaust-denial-in-the-ideology-and-strategy-of-the-iranian-regime/

- noga1

September 4, 2012 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it is worth noting, Noga, that the article you cite in Politco regarding the omission of "Jerusalem is capital of Israel" language is consistent long-standing US policy, and that is why the US has its embassy in Tel Aviv. Disagree with that policy if you will, but singling out Obama as not being a friend of Israel because he is following longstanding US policy seems a bit unfair, unless it is your position that the US is therefore not a friend of Israel. Dhurtado

- NR143296

September 4, 2012 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Depends how you define friendship. "There are fair-weather friends and foul-weather friends, but the strangest friends of all are those who display their commitment to you only when they publicly criticize you."

- noga1

September 4, 2012 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, Dhurtado, Obama and the US are not interchangeable entities. If they were, there would be no need for elections every four years.

- noga1

September 4, 2012 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very true -- and that's why foreign policy positions that have survived the administrations and presidents of different parties and ideological stripes carry a lot of weight.

- ironyroad

September 4, 2012 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The DNC platform2012 is significantly different on Israel and jerusalem than DNC2008 and DNC2004. This is not about where the US Embassy is located. DNC2012 does not state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But, I really just came back because I was wondering what Martin Peretz thinks about Clint Eastwood at the RNC. nice to read you noga.

- K2K

September 4, 2012 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How nice. But apparently platforms and the real world are two different things: http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/161737.pdf Three presidents, two D and one R, have had the option of enacting a congressional mandate to move the embassy to Jerusalem but have refused to do so. That might tell you something.

- ironyroad

September 5, 2012 at 3:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure I understand you, ironyroad. Why do you think it was decided to remove reference to Hamas as a terrorist organization? To Jerusalem being the capital of Israel? Obama is extremely careful with his wording. What is or IS NOT included is not an oversight or some playing at rewording. There is an intention and intelligence working behind these omissions. Do you have any theories about why he would choose to express his policies in this way? If he accepts the principle of bi-partisan support for Israel, why is he attempting to put distance between his support and that of the conservatives? After all, it's not as if Bush endorsed a Greater Israel vision or even the settlements, or whatever. So why the need to create an artificial distance, unless there is a very good motivation for it? What could be that motivation?

- noga1

September 5, 2012 at 7:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/04/dnc-blames-obama-for-israel-platform-changes/#more-804366 quoting "CNN’s Dana Bash: I asked the DNC [why it omitted sections of its 2008 Israel plank from its 2012 platform] and we have an answer. And their answer was that they were simply following what the Obama administration’s policy is, and the White House said several months ago that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that is why it is not in the platform as it was in 2008." yes irony, the Democratic Party base now puts more effort into protecting the lives of snail darters than Jews. or Christians, if they have the misfortune to live in the 'progressive' world of islam, e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Syria. The remaining 2,000 Jews of Tunisia just got the word (new law) that it is time for them to leave. and, now that I am officially an "oldie" whose vote is not important to the DNC regardless of my religion, well then...maybe I should re-incarnate as a snail darter...

- K2K

September 5, 2012 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: How is the DNC or any other political group endorsing the status of Jerusalem "protecting the lives of Jews or Christians if they have the misfortune to live in the 'progressive' world of islam e.g. Egypt, Iraq, Syria"? Leaving aside the question as to whether an American political party of any stripe be declaring where the capital of another country ought to be (and even if it's 'no,' Jerusalem could be considered a special case), that seems either a total non sequitur or a position of somewhat baffling complexity. For example, if the U.S. moved the embassy to Jerusalem next week, how would that improve things for Christians in Egypt? The opposite seems a likely consequence. Noga: The honest answer is I don't know, as I didn't even know that the 2008 platform contained a reference to Jerusalem. On the Hamas question, I'd speculate that there might have been some thinking (maybe even some secret contact) about whether Lebanon can be prevented from collapsing into a violent sideshow to the Syrian conflict, and it's possible the Hamas is seen as a stabilizing force in certain circumstances. But I'm just guessing.

- ironyroad

September 5, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure how hamas is related to Lebanon. Do you perhaps mean Hezbolla?

- noga1

September 5, 2012 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes, Hisbollah, sorry. Then I've no idea.

- ironyroad

September 5, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: the issue is NOT about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. The issue is that formal Obama policy no longer recognizes that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, coincidentally hardened into policy AFTER Abbas (that would be the Fatah guy who is not Hamas) started publicly claiming there is NO historical evidence of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Which no one seems to think is odd except for anyone familiar with history, archaelogy, and the Bible. and Putin, who recently made a very public visit to the Western Wall, and proclaimed Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and then signaled the go-ahead for Gazprom to help Israel develop their offshore Leviathan natural gas field. I find it astonishing that Obama has so terrified his 'court Jews' that they had no input into the official DNC platform2012. I can imagine the tsurris that Steve Israel, chair of the DCCC, is going through on Long Island. To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never said anything about the increasing persecution of indigenous Christians in muslim majority countries. In Egypt, it is now ok to murder or crucify such "heretics". One would think the President of a nation founded by those escaping religious persecution would find a way to condemn such intolerance, in any nation. But, what can one expect from someone whose official White House celebration of Hanukah in 2011 was on the 24th anniversary of the First Intifada.

- K2K

September 5, 2012 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well, seems the Democratic Party does have a schism as to whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I was really hoping Brasilia would be the big question - after all, was not that land stolen from indigenous tribes?

- K2K

September 5, 2012 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close