Clint Eastwood addresses the Republican National Convention

[New York'rr]

Guy sounded like he had thrown back a few before going out there.

Also sounded like he was making it up as he went along.

Other than that it was pretty good.

[Ping-Pong Ball]

Why use the hour of network television to talk issues, have the candidates say what they will do if elected, or lay out an action plan on how to solve the problems facing our economy when an 80+ year old man with no relevance to the Presidency can babble for 15 minutes?

Now the media can fill the next 24 news cycle talking about the impact of Eastwood with breaks to report how much Mitt loves his wife Ann. After all, that's much more important than focusing on getting unemployment under 8%, fixing the economy, taking care of our vets, making a dent in our huge budget deficit, or any of the other issues facing our nation.

I get it, Eastwood is a great rah-rah man for those in Tampa; however, total waste of time & purpose with regards to how Eastwood played out to the television audience at home watching. Too bad the qualities & skill sets one needs to win the election & Office of President are totally opposite & different than the skill sets & qualities needed to execute the daily duties of the job effectively if elected President.

[Kace]

The one notable thing about all this is that people watching the Preseason Panthers-Steelers game on TV in Fayetteville got a rude interruption by the political thing with only minutes to go in the game itself. I guess there were no other options for people wanting to just watch the convention stuff to begin with in Fayetteville.

[buckpasser]

I didn't see it.

Bu t I heard he pretended a chair was President Obama. Nice work, Repubs. An old white guy talking to a chair. Almost as good as Sean Hannity and Glen Beck creating a fake voice, then arguing against the personality they just created (spoiler alert: Sean and Glen win the debate).


If Republicans could talk about themselves, they would have. But they can't.



They can't defend. They can attack. Republicans impeached Clinton before they started a war in Iraq.

[New York'rr]

That's bull.

You saw it.

[Fire Hydrogant]

The biggest problem I have with his speech is this remark:

See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway.

(APPLAUSE)

I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always taught to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both sides. They are always devil's advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.

HUH? Devil's advocating and weighing both sides are BAD things?

And as for:

But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe a businessman. How about that?
(APPLAUSE)

We've heard this argument before, and someone already posted this here on Medialine, but I'll post it here again for those who may have missed it, an article on how history shows that businessmen have not always made the best presidents:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz20pVRYhay

So I disagree, Clint. Our government is not a business. It's a democratic institution that's run based on a constitution. That said, I would think electing a president who has a law degree, who is well versed in constitutionality issues, IS as good idea.

One more thing: Yes, I used to be a HUGE fan of Clint Eastwood, -when I was a kid. But I'm an adult now. I think it's time we start acknowledging how incredibly asinine the "Dirty Harry" movie series really was.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally Posted by Fire Hydrogant

I think it's time we start acknowledging how incredibly asinine the "Dirty Harry" movie series really was.

To tell you the truth, I just don't remember how incredibly asinine they were in all this excitement; did he make 6 Dirty Harries or only 5?

Well...did he, Punk?!

[Another side]

Originally Posted by Fire Hydrogant

So I disagree, Clint. Our government is not a business. It's a democratic institution that's run based on a constitution. That said, I would think electing a president who has a law degree, who is well versed in constitutionality issues, IS as good idea.

Successful business-owners have no time for those who cannot afford their products ... and I really don't have a quarrell with that. It's business.

Business-owners spend their lives staring at the bottom line -- they have families to feed, employees to pay, inventory to keep on hand, taxes that will choke them from (with apologies to Howie Long) six rooms away. And the good ones keep both an expensive accountant and costly lawyer nearby to help with cranky bankers and shifty customers (and thieving emplolyees)-- not to mention the IRS -- clawing away at the numbers before the owner can identify his or her "net profit."

And the hope is the "net profit" can be used to further the American Dream -- pay the mortgage, get the kids through college, have a few nice things around the house and in the driveway, a little insurance as a hedge and -- if their god is willing -- something set aside for retirement.

They can't do that and worry about people who can't afford their products. If they do, they'll go broke. And then everyone loses.

So they welcome those who have the wherewithal to buy what it is they are selling, and push aside those who don't have the financial means. Makes perrfect sense to me.

But that's not a recipe for good goverrnment. A government cannot push any of its citizens aside, chase them out the door. We can argue all day over how much help and what kind of help should be available -- and what the tax rate should be for the marginal earner as opposed to those who struck one of life's richer veins, but that's not really the point.

The point is business has one role -- to produce a healthy profit-and-loss statement by neccessarily pulling the welcome mat ifrom in front of those who can't contribute -- and government has another -- to treat all its citizens equally, financial wherewithal be damned.

As far as attorneys, I can take 'em or leave 'em. I've known too many of them over the years and too many of them speak too much maddening legalize to understand what the hell they're REALLY saying -- by design.

I guess if we could get a business owner with a law degree who respected the Bill of Rights, we might all grin happily for awhile. Maybe.

One more thing: Yes, I used to be a HUGE fan of Clint Eastwood, -when I was a kid. But I'm an adult now. I think it's time we start acknowledging how incredibly asinine the "Dirty Harry" movie series really was.

Nah. Let the memories stand. They, and the westerns, kept my attention and provided laughs later. Over-the-top acting for sure, but entertaining nonetheless.

[qryche]

Funny...there were a handful of Republicans who couldn't stand Clint's Super Bowl commercial and accused him of a pro-Democrat agenda. I guess those same people will call Clint a friggin' genius now?

[PSUWx]

I keep getting a different impression of 'government' as a business than some of the rest of you.

I'm hearing about government as a cold, hard boss, and always looking at the bottom line as to where to streamline the company and discharge what's not performing as it relates to its assets-- the citizenry. With this framing-- yes, that's not a good recipe for government.

...But I don't ascribe to that metaphor for government-as-a-buisness...nor do I think that's the one Romney is advancing.

I see the thing as "the people" as a whole being the boss, managing "the government" as the business (note the reversal). In that regard, it's a different deal entirely. Perhaps a critical part of this election will be who wins the framing argument.

Most likely, this will be whomever is able to most successfully frame the other guy's view of government.

[wx or not]

Clint was a good singer in the old days. Check out "I Talk to the Trees" from "Paint Your Wagon." (Jeez, I'm old...)

[Jane Craig]

Lee Marvin's rumbling "Wandering Star" beats that any day. Paint Your Wagon is a mess of a movie.

[Audacity]

If ever there was an example of "Male, Pale and Stale" it was Clint.

Funny how Republicans rail against celebrities making any comment about politics because who the Hell do they think they are to have an opinion that we should care about. Yet they turn around and waste valuable prime time to let an 82 year-old celebrity ramble on and on about nothing of any importance.

I think "Talk to the Hand" has just been replaced with "Talk to the Chair."

[Diplomat]

I think Mr. Eastwood's point was that there are lawyers have an unfortunate tendency to analyze and micromanage everything to death and miss the big picture because they obsess over details. Having worked with many lawyers and former lawyers, I have seen this first-hand. Also, too many of them have a tendency to think they're the smartest people in the room when they are not. Yes, other professions have that same serious problem, but in my experiences with working with lawyers, they seem to believe they are entitled to have everyone fall prostrate to their "superior" wisdom. I know some smart people who are lawyers and I know some really stupid people who are lawyers. The smart ones are people first and everything else after that. The stupid ones are lawyers first at the expense of common sense and humanity, and also walking lawyer joke books.

[rootboyslim]

Originally Posted by Audacity

If ever there was an example of "Male, Pale and Stale" it was Clint.

Funny how Republicans rail against celebrities making any comment about politics because who the Hell do they think they are to have an opinion that we should care about. Yet they turn around and waste valuable prime time to let an 82 year-old celebrity ramble on and on about nothing of any importance.

I think "Talk to the Hand" has just been replaced with "Talk to the Chair."

Yep, one part of the democrats' playbook the GOP needs to avoid.

[The Mockingbird]

The tweet of President Obama sitting in a chair and "This seat's taken" was pretty good, though.

[Sultanosurf]

The whole thing seems a dogwhistle...

[Lazlo Toth]

I found his speech a little odd. And thought it might end with "Pull my finger."

[The Mockingbird]

If, by "Bringing Down the House" you mean perfunctory applause and vague bewilderment, sure.

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Toth

I found his speech a little odd.

It went over big in person.

But the general media response seems to echo your reaction, with the LA Times terming it "...so unusual a performance." And having Eastwood on instead of the obligatory bio video in prime was probably a bad choice. Maybe it plays into Romney's favor, since Eastwood is all people are talking about today, instead of the usual plattitudes and undefined specifics in Romney's speech.

Does any of this really matter, though? Anybody watching the convention instead of football or whatever is already in the tent. Could Eastwood swing over any undecideds? Did he overshadow Rubio, part of an essential segment the Republicans need?

Guess we find out when the polls start rolling in...

[Fire Hydrogant]

Originally Posted by Diplomat

I think Mr. Eastwood's point was that there are lawyers have an unfortunate tendency to analyze and micromanage everything to death and miss the big picture because they obsess over details. Having worked with many lawyers and former lawyers, I have seen this first-hand. Also, too many of them have a tendency to think they're the smartest people in the room when they are not. Yes, other professions have that same serious problem, but in my experiences with working with lawyers, they seem to believe they are entitled to have everyone fall prostrate to their "superior" wisdom. I know some smart people who are lawyers and I know some really stupid people who are lawyers. The smart ones are people first and everything else after that. The stupid ones are lawyers first at the expense of common sense and humanity, and also walking lawyer joke books.

All of the above things could also be said about successful businesspeople.

One ironic thing for me about Clint's reference to lawyers "devil's advocating" everything, is that the first time I learned the phrase "devil's advocate" was in a basic business management class I took in college. They presented it as something that business managers use in company meetings to make sure that all the pros and cons of a business idea have been thoroughly explored before going ahead and implementing the idea. The way they explained it is that in a business environment, the employees and/or middle management people present at the meeting might feel too reluctant to speak up in opposition to what they think might be a bad business decision, because they're all concerned about just keeping their jobs and not making waves. So the most senior manager in the room will officially appoint someone to be a "devil's advocate," and their sole job at the meeting is to think up any and all possible negative aspects of an idea that is brought up in the meeting.

Of course, I don't really know to what extent the devil's advocate format is used in business meetings in companies across America...

[Union Label]

The RNC's list of speakers seemed like pretty much a parade of older, disenfranchised white guys with very few exceptions save for Condoleezza Rice and New Mexico's Governor Susana Martinez. Given the fact that Romney and his chosen running mate Paul Ryan are now the confirmed nominees, I don't think a lot of undecided female swing state voters will feel all that welcome in the GOP's tent. John Boehner didn't help the party out in the hispanic and black voter category either when he said he hoped that those voters sould just stay home on election day.

[Pro]

If you're interested, here's President Obama's response to Eastwood's ramblings:

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/stat...915712/photo/1

[rootboyslim]

Originally Posted by Pro

If you're interested, here's President Obama's response to Eastwood's ramblings:

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/stat...915712/photo/1

For now.

[News Is Broken]

And now a few words from former President Bush....