On a More Serious Note, Eastwood Was Rambling and Confused
Clint Eastwood broke a cardinal rule of speech making: never ever ever upstage the person you have been asked to introduce.
Ostensibly Eastwood, 82, was to introduce Mitt Romney so that he could give his acceptance speech.
But in between his opening “Save some for Mitt” (in response to the ovation greeting him on stage) to his closing as choir leader (as the crowd chants “make my day”) lay a ramble of a speech.
Writing in Salon, Willa Paskin argues, “In 10 years, this is the speech we will remember.”
Why will we remember it?
The ramble, memorable because of the empty chair beside him?
The ramble, memorable because it had no coherency?
The ramble, memorable because of Twitter and #eastwooding?
Paskin succinctly describes the confused nature of the speech:
… Eastwood wasn’t actually hewing all that closely to Republican talking points. Eastwood thinks Obama shouldn’t close down Gitmo, not because it’s essential to national security, but because “we’ve spent so much money on that.” OK! Eastwood harshed on Obama for not “consulting the Russians” about getting involved in Afghanistan as though Obama started that war. He took shots at the president for driving around in a gas-guzzling jet when he’s supposed to be “ecological,” as though Republicans believe climate change is a real thing. He insulted Obama for being a lawyer, forgetting that Romney has a law degree too.
Eastwood did make one of the GOP talking points:
I was even crying. And then finally — and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously — this administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
Here’s the unemployment rate, a better measure than absolute numbers because the population is always increasing. It’s not without faults, but it is the best we have:
Added: I’m certainly not going to say that with 23 million people out of work that we have reached full employment, so sorry. But the movement in employment data is in the right direction. And yes, I know personally that having two part-time jobs does not necessarily equal a full-time job. We don’t have good stats on underemployment (that I know of), some of which is related to the economy, some to spendthrifts (salaries in education) and some to the disruption of computer technology.
And here’s @MikeGruwald, author of The New New Deal, writing at TIME:
In the fourth quarter of 2008, the U.S. economy crashed at an 8.9% annual rate. At that pace, we would have lost an entire Canadian economy in a year. We lost 800,000 jobs in January… the next quarter reflected the biggest improvement in jobs in 30 years. The economy was still weak, but it was no longer grotesque.
[...]
[T]he top economic forecasters agree that at its peak the stimulus added between 2% and 4% to the GDP, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs.
Last year, Republicans asked the Federal Reserve to just say no to a new monetary stimulus. (Added: You can read Paul Krugman on Paul Ryan, Atlas Shrugged and monetary policy for one of the GOP arguments.)
[T]he board should resist further extraordinary interventions in the U.S. economy, particularly without a clear articulation of the goals of such a policy, direction for success, ample data proving a case for economic action and quantifiable benefits to the American people.
[...]
We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy.
Finally, USAToday notes that many in the GOP had been unhappy with Eastwood because of his SuperBowl Chrysler commercials. This speech was a form of redemption.
Clint Eastwood’s rambling speech to the Republican National Convention did make his day in one respect: it helped redeem the legendary actor from criticism over his appearance in Chrysler’s Super Bowl commercials.
But it was still a confusing ramble.
And if the man can’t do improv, then why wasn’t the speech scripted and vetted?
Share This
Related Posts
-
Sexual Abuse in the Military: (Some in) the GOP on the Wrong Side – Again
Posted on Jun 5, 2013
-
(UPDATE) ‘Derpy,’ a Word that Suits the Occasion – and the Man
Posted on Jun 4, 2013
-
House Fishing Expeditions- Hoping to Hook a Big One
Posted on May 21, 2013
-
Orthodoxy: Liberty’s Other Enemy
Posted on Feb 13, 2013
It wasnt about what he had to say… it was about his status as a Hollywood star. This was the RNC saying, “look, were popular too!” What’s next…
The Romney Girl?
Clint seems more like an elderly Sparticus more and more each time I see him. He’s made some of the most violent films ever seen to that point, p’o-ed a bunch of repubs with his portrayal of the FBI J Edgar and made it clear he was in love with his man-pal, whilst acting unhinged like the KGB. I guess I remember him from more innocent and far more sharper drawn as a male as Rowdy Yates on Wagon Train. I have NO idea what the shows were about, dont remember a single one, only that Clint was back then a dreamboat. But werent we all in some way, now looking back.
It seemed as though the bit worked better in the arena than it came across on TV. I did find it odd, and rambling. It isn’t easy to pull off that Bob Newhart style of comedy (and i note that Bob himself doesn’t seem pleased.)
In hindsight when i think about the routine now though, the empty chair metaphor does seem apt for how many conservatives view this president, it was a bit disrespectful to point that out so brazenly, and not my cup of tea, but i get it.
The speech was rambling but it seemed to work in person and there were some amusing parts. There were some times where Eastwood seemed to be arguing against Romney as much as Obama. Romney is probably even more warlike than Obama on Afghanistan and Romney is not any more “ecological” than Obama. I’m not sure what Eastwood was trying to say about Guantanamo other than Obama didn’t keep a promise.
As a serious speech it didn’t work, but it wasn’t meant to be entirely serious and the crowd loved it. It was pretty strange though.
Two opposing movie quotes will always stick out in my mind with Clint
The Outlaw Josey Wales:
Lone Watie: How did you know which one was goin’ to shoot first?
Josie Wales: Well, that one in the center: he had a flap holster and he was in no itchin’ hurry. And the one second from the left: he had scared eyes, he wasn’t gonna do nothin’. But that one on the far left: he had crazy eyes. Figured him to make the first move.
Lone Watie: How ’bout the one on the right?
Josie Wales: Never paid him no mind; you were there.
Lone Watie: I could have missed.
The Unforgiven:
W.W. Beauchamp: Who, uh, who’d you kill first?
Will Munny: Huh?
W.W. Beauchamp: When confronted by superior numbers, an experienced gunfighter will always fire on the best shot first.
Will Munny: Is that so?
W.W. Beauchamp: Yeah, Little Bill told me that. And you probably killed him first, didn’t you?
Will Munny: I was lucky in the order, but I’ve always been lucky when it comes to killin’ folks.
classic…
Yeah. Let’s put the elderly on stage and make them do parlor tricks. Go us!
What i said may not be PC, and I don’t mean offense, but that’s what I saw. It was shameful.
Shameful, now there’s another possible euphemism to follow up on yesterday’s lying-fest of euphemisms. The crowd loved Clint and I loved it; it was funny entertainment for us.
What the politicians, from both sides, are doing to us isn’t funny, they are screwing us, now that is shameful.
Color me crude and crass, it “makes my day”.
My wife, who really isn’t into politics, watched Eastwood’s speech this AM and really liked it. She thought it was funny and a nice break from the usual political BS.
I just watched it and thought it was funny and pretty coherent though a little racy for those family values types. If his purpose was to introduce Romney, he forgot it, but, hey, he’s 82; us old types don’t remember everything like we used to.
Old people ramble, that’s one of our more (or less) endearing charms. Can you remember any of those canned speeches made to introduce the presidential candidate over the years? I can’t. This one will be remembered and may set a new trend – comedy. Lord knows we could use some.
DG, strange, I always thought Dems, I guess because of the entertainment industry, had more of a sense of humor then the Reps have. But, I guess partisanship trumps all.
Yes, the break was nice.
I have read one really good point in all of this….
today, people are writing and talking about Eastwood… not Romney.
and that is really bad for Romney.
Clarissa, speaking of rambling: Eastwood didn’t play Hoover (that was DiCaprio), and Rowdy Yates was on Rawhide. But even allowing those minor errors and idiosyncratic syntax, your free association posts are getting weirder and weirder.
ShannonLeee — your last post (the one above this one) is spot on and reflects the Salon story. I stand by my question at the end of the Storify – does the “no publicity is bad publicity” belief work in a world of Twitter memes?
To those who watched the video and liked it – good for you. I watched it, too, although I did read the transcript first. Maybe that’s why it wasn’t funny to me. And I totally “get” out of context video; think “Dean Scream.” The only difference here (I think) is that we most of us are seeing the entire speech cuz it’s so short and on YouTube. And back then, the line coming from the right was something along the lines of “Dean should understand that his audience is larger than those in the room.” [Hmmm. Maybe I'll write about these two clips this afternoon.]
CStanley and Dr E — what I’m reading between the lines in your comments is a form of nostalgia. Or if not nostalgia, very “old” memories. My family did not watch Bob Newhart, so I did not know that this empty chair business was his schtick. I know that there is a tweet from him but I read it as though it were comedy; maybe he’s really annoyed?
We did watch The Rifleman but I don’t really remember it.
My point: perhaps the GOP was (yet again) appealing to a much older demographic, a much older voter. That group (up to a certain age, maybe 70? I forget and I’m not going to go look it up!) does vote more (larger percentage) than under 25s. And that group leans Republican.
Holy cow! The Belgians love my #Eastwooding storify – almost 30K views! http://storify.com/kegill/twitter-goes-wild-after-eastwood-speech/
Wow, good catch.
I read that elsewhere… Not so much my good catch.
Kathy, I’ll draw upon my useless knowledge of old TV shows to clarify. Bob Newhart did not do an empty chair routine per se but the hallmark of his comedy act was a humorous phone conversation in which you would only hear Bob’s side of the conversation and have to imagine what was going on on the other end. He also incorporated this into his TV show at times. Eastwood’s speech was a variation on that.
The Rifleman starred Chuck Connors as Lucas McCain, but did not involve Clint Eastwood.
RJ
Speaking of rambling: Clint Eastwood directed J. Edgar and did upset the conservatives mightily. Eccentrics are welcome here, personal derision not so much.
Kathy-DaGoat beat me to the Newhart explanation. If you haven’t seen any of his routine or tv show episodes, i imagine there are some on youtube. He was one of my Dad’s favorite comedians so I grew up watching and became a fan.
I’ve always thought that comedic style must be hard to pull off, as it requires great timing and facil expression (which Newhart excelled at IMO.)
Shelley Berman also did similar bits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWwUgjkOHAA
In addition to this, Bob Newhart was a standup comic. He also had a fairly prominent role in a WWII movie. The movie, iirc, starred McQueen as a former (read: busted) nco who ends up with a unit that has to hold a position that the entire company (think 150+ guys) was holding, but with one squad (8? guys).
Newhart does his routine in that the squad finds a hidden listening device and has him pretend to be talking on the radio constantly.
At one point, Newhart suggests that they are so filled up with people that they are having to share four and five guys to a foxhole. He then suggests that maybe they could send the others to Japan, he’s heard there is a war going on there also…
Rod Johnson this book might be very helpful read and contemplation for you…
http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-A-Word-Assholism-First-Sixty/dp/1610391756
Actually “RodJo”, Eastwood was on Wagon Train: he was an extra. Look up your facts. You are right Rowdy Yates is the character on Rawhide. I thought everyone knew Clint directed J Edgar Hoover film since it is so recent. You must have misread my post. I never said Eastwood played Hoover. You’re mistaken. I did critique the way DIRECTOR Clint Eastwood portrayed JEH. Read the commenters’ rules at the top of the home page RodJohnson. There’s no attacking writers or commenters, amongst other things. Abide and all will be well.
Hi Kathy… Thanks for the posts. Dorian and Robert and myself and a couple other tmv writers are in the age group you mention.Seen a lot of decades go by. And it’s true, we are it seems, the tail end of the deal and a handshake, one’s word is supposed to be gold, generation. We consider it duty and privilege to vote, you are right. Re Clint E., I think sometimes we can see a panorama of a person’s life from their being very young to quite old…because we are ourselves near or in their age group. I do think about, not nostaglia, which is ‘pain for home’ of another time… but just as a contemporary of the elderly well known ones of our nation and other nations too, that time is passing. This becomes more noteable as time goes on, as most everyone finds as they near maybe about 70 years or so… e.g., to see ‘the old bears’ still strong, but also, noticably veering when out of their element, as I thought Eastwood was at GOP convention attempting humor which when spontaneous or well studied, is quite different than what he put forth. I give him kudos for trying. Across the blogesphere, many are cruel in their estimations. I can only say, wait until you are his age, and hopefully you too will still be ‘rough and ready’ in your own way.
dr. e, you made my day, CE is a panorama and I think a kind of icon, like a John Wayne.
I wish, I could today do a bit like he did, yes it’s a bit, let alone when I hit 82.
If he had done it with a smooth delivery, it would not reflect that he is an old guy and not been as effective. Leave the machine gun deliveries with no pauses hesitations to the likes of Jon Stewart. Listen to Bob Newhart, those that don’t know what I mean.
From an old codger.
Thanks – funny that I was thinking he was the Rifleman but I know that he wasn’t.
RE his appearing at the convention – bully for him.
But humor is hard. And requires practice – lots of it. And a good writing team. Those two things seem to have been missing from the delivery — which is what I’m talking about. That the speech rambled implies insufficient practice. That speech was factually incorrect and thus confusing implies it was missing the writing team.
Well, KG, a professional comedian of the far left persuasion disagrees. Yes, I watch Bill Maher, and last night he abhorred the actual content, but praised CE for working without a teleprompter and speaking to an empty chair. He said CE did a terrific job, and this comes from a 30-year comedy career person.
So maybe some people need new writing team that understands comedy, or perhaps the current one has had insufficient practice.