Day By Day September 1, 2012 – Gran Mal
Chris, Clint Eastwood knew exactly what he was doing at the Republican National Convention. I, especially like Mark Steyn’s assessment of the performance.
Like William F. Gavin, I hugely enjoyed Clint Eastwood’s turn last night, but I’m not sure I agree that it was “unintentionally hilarious” and that “he forgot his lines, lost his way.” Clint is a brilliant actor, and a superb director of other actors (and I don’t just mean a quarter-century ago: In the last five years, he’s directed eight films). He’s also, as Mr. Gavin observed, a terrific jazz improviser at the piano — and, in film and music documentaries, an extremely articulate interviewee. So I wouldn’t assume that the general tenor of his performance wasn’t exactly as he intended. The hair was a clue: No Hollywood icon goes out on stage like that unless he means to.
John Hayward writes:
“The intended recipient was not Mitt Romney, the convention delegates, or even Republican voters, but rather wavering independents. Clint was there to tell them it’s OK to find Obama, his ugly campaign operation, and his increasingly shrill band of die-hard defenders ridiculous. It’s OK to laugh at them.”
Without a doubt, Eastwood provided “cover” for Mitt Romney. It is OK to vote against President Obama – not even everyone from Hollywood is supporting him this time around.
Now, let’s see who the Democrats use to attempt to “trump” Dity Harry.
5 Comments
Fond of Complex Analysis
Wow, Dirty Hairy. I had to look it up
just for giggles…that was over forty years ago. Of course I need not remind
most Californians of the lengths a film star will go to in order to remain
relevant when attempting yet another award-grabbing swansong. My bet is he gets
“lifetime achievement” this year or the next, especially in light of
the other “inside baseball” film that was turned out a year ago with
actors in it whose’ iconic roles have occurred, for the most part, in the years
comprising present century. I digress though, as what really surprised me was
how everyone, including Eastwood himself, seemed to ignore the fact that the
man on stage is on the record for being thoroughly opposed to most of moral
issues that make up the Republican Party platform.
Gregory Flap Cole
The biggest Giggles are yet to come as Team Obama attempts to trump Clint Eastwood with a gaggle of Hollywood stars.
They just could not resist a counter demonstration.
Fond of Complex Analysis
National politics invites a circus-like atmosphere, and celebrities have certainly been a tool for both major parties’ efforts to negate the problems of apathy and recognition among individuals of voting age. Whomever the Democrats pick as their celebrity spokesperson(s) however, we can be assured she/he/they will fall in line more easily with the party’s platform than Clint Eastwood did for the Republicans. Though Eastwood’s incongruity in terms of social issues gives me some hope that the cliches promoted by the likes of Tobey Keith and Alan Jackson have, at last, worn out their collective welcome.
As for the nature of any keynote or guest speakers that turn up at the DNC, the smart move would be to focus on the efforts of Republican factions to dismantle the rights of American women. It’s certainly been something of an open sore this election cycle and it warrants continued discussion.
Gregory Flap Cole
You do realize that the GOP is a party of many belief systems and diversity, right?
Dismantle the rights of women? Oh, you mean, no “free” birth control or taxpayer financed abortion?
Fond of Complex Analysis
Not withstanding that you and I probably have two very different notions of what “diversity” looks like, I would still argue that the Republican Party is attempting to flee from diversity in the same manner as any mass-mediated entity does. After all, having to display any sort of variability automatically limits the range of the intended message as you must produce information for some groups that will not be fit for the consumption of others. The goal of any good political campaign is to present the message to as wide an audience as possible. While there are, no doubt, individual factions within the party who tout very different ideas, those unique trains of thought don’t survive the distillation process that produces the popular message (e.g. it’s not as though the Log Cabin types have an impact on the party platform). Consider the candidates put forth as options for the party’s presidential candidate: a fairly uniform group from which outliers were continually stripped until the candidate that was least likely to go against the party’s popular message emerged.
And I suppose we could discuss issues of women’s reproductive health, after all as a healthcare professional you are certainly aware that the human body is not a collection of independently functioning units, but a system where the well-being of the whole is dependent upon the well-being of each component. Though at the same time I think we could start with issues like unwillingness to legislate the in come disparity between men and women, attempts to withdraw financial support from programs aimed at protecting women from domestic violence, and standards for maternity (and paternity) leave. Oh, and then there’s that pesky “rape” issue that keeps turning up–the most recent example being a fascinating look at the greater party’s efforts to conceal its own “diversity”.