Clint was pretty trippy. Orrin Hatch suggested he had to wing it due his teleprompter going down, but I imagine he was just doing his own thing after a couple of pops.
As a great director, he knows a tight production is all script-dependent. No script, you get what you get.
If the GOP wanted a tight message, they needed to script-him-up like Chrysler did for the Super Bowl spots (you know, those secret Obama ads the tin-foil-hats howled about).
Still, he’s always interesting. The dude marches to his own drummer. I’ve always loved his movies, especially as a director, and they keep getting better. He’s been hitting homer after homer since “Unforgiven.”
I imagine Clint was there for the audience and not the tv viewers, because it did not come across so good on tv but the audience seemed to eat it up. What I also find interesting is everybody is talking about Clint, nobody is talking about Mitt. That isn’t a good sign.
Mitt delivered their carefully crafted script as well as he possibly could. No real economic plan, and frightening stupidity about Russia brings us back to obsolete cold war mentality, but he will gain with this performance.
Video on Mitt the person exceptionally good. It missed prime time for those without cable.
The Illinois delegation was spotlighted for awhile when Romney did his walk in, pat brady (who needs a different haircut) and hastert the elder got maybe-5-10 seconds of real quality national tv air time in there as well as several others. As for the night, didn’t really get me. The convention reminded me of a class of 9 year olds with a substitute teacher, people follow and pay attention but don’t really have any respect and borderline disobey.
Clint was a foolish mistake. Either he wasn’t scripted (insane), or something happened with his teleprompter. It would have been much better to just have him introduce Romney for 2 minutes.
That being said, Romney is now beginning to push his biographical narrative hard. Everyone knows he’s a businessman and without more knowledge, the public simply projects stereotypes of rich businessmen on him.
With the public getting to know his wife, his life story and some of the very compelling stories told last night, that will change.
Romeny was able to look into the camera last night and tell the American people, “I am a husband, father, and American, just like you.” and I think it came across very effectively. He is showing that he has much more in common with most Americans than the president.
This is a very disciplined campaign that has been impressive in its effectiveness so far. (except for the little Clint thing.)
- Way Way Down Here - Friday, Aug 31, 12 @ 10:32 am:
==An old angry white man arguing with an imaginary Obama.===
I respect Clint Eastwood and his incredible talent. I couldn’t figure out if last night was an original idea that went wrong in execution or evidence of senility. And if it’s the latter, it breaks my heart.
As for the rest of the convention, it was predictable. It didn’t change the election.
” Romney is now beginning to push his biographical narrative hard. Everyone knows he’s a businessman and without more knowledge, the public simply projects stereotypes of rich businessmen on him.”
He’s been running and pushing this for 6 years, his sons campaigned more and harder for him than any other candidates kids I can remember. Every 2 months Romney seems to “reintroduce himself”. shouldn’t be this hard.
- Holdingontomywallet - Friday, Aug 31, 12 @ 10:42 am:
I thought Rubio’s speech was the best of all - very inspiring. So Clint acted like an “angry old white guy”? Well. he is old (82). he is white (not sure what that has to do with anything), but I would not say he was angry. He disagrees with the way Obama is running the country and he has plenty of company. The empty chair was symbolic. I wasn’t very impressed with Romney’s delivery, but that isn’t one of his strong points. Both of these candidates need to give us details about their plans. In the end, it will come down to jobs and the economy - and that favors Romney.
Did anybody see Huntsman on Colbert last night? I loved the way he worked in that he and Mitt share the same (12-wife polygamous) great great great grandfather… Also the snarky comments about super PACs. And the long, long pause when Colbert asked him to name the top five things he likes about Romney.
I thought Romney’s most powerful moment was when he followed up the President’s 2008 promises to lower the oceans and heal the planet with, “My promise is to help you and your family.” I think that’s going to resonate with folks in swing states struggling economically. The recurring theme of recent college graduates stuck back home without a job is also going to resonate. Ryan’s prior night image of the fading Obama poster adds a lot of “stickiness” to that.
The number one issue is JOBS.
Romney knows this and said the right stuff.
Romney needed to show that he was a moderate Massachusetts governor, and he did that.
Romney had to point a way forward from the economic disaster that is today’s economy, and he did that.
Romney needed to avoid making any errors, and he did.
Romney needed to look and sound like a president, and he did that too.
The GOP needed to look an acceptable alternative to the current administration, and they did.
Romney is positioned to take his pro growth, pro job creation messages to voters afraid of the future. He is right on the target.
You may not agree with his solutions, but we all must admit that he knows the problems. That is more than half the battle.
Looking forward to how our President justifies a reelection bid considering how he has failed to jump start our economy and fail to deliver a jobs plan.
The problem for Republicans from last night is that all anyone, who isn’t particulaarly political, is talking about is Eastwood. Why in the world would you put him on in primetime, and then thje awkward red carpet walk in was differet as well. There wasn’t the customary bio video prior to the speech, which I also thought was odd.
so you are drinking the whole mormon koolaid thing, huh? We’ll see how well that works on come 11/6.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Aug 31, 12 @ 10:59 am:
Rubio was outstanding and highlighted what the American Dream means to all of us whose parents were immigrants. Romney looked at ease, not his usual wooden delivery behind a podium. Clint Eastwood was a trip, doing his “Grand Torino” character arguing with a symbolic empty chair. When Clint said “We Own This Country” and that politicians work for us and they can be replaced if they aren’t doing their jobs, his little skit suddenly came into focus.
The bobble head TV pundits didn’t like it. Most of them sputtered. Everyone on the train this a.m. talked about it differently than the bobble heads.
Makes you wonder who is really out of touch with America these days.
The other-worldly, um, speech by Clint summed up perfectly the new persona of the Republican Party: old, white, male and crazy. I’m not sure that’s the best way for them to present themselves, not if they want to survive long-term, anyway.
On a related note, did anyone catch that ridiculous interview that Diane Sawyer did with Paul Ryan? She giggled and fawned over him like a school girl meeting Justin Beiber. A perfect example of what’s wrong with the media establishment. Anyone who can still claim leftwing media bias with a straight face ought to subject themselves to that turd. She should be ashamed of herself.
Sarge, you may note that many who are posting here would like for the issues to be Mormonism and likeability (with a side order of Clint Eastwood). That’s cause that is all they got - that is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell.
I note that the networks are showing bits and pieces of Eastwood’s comments. Doing so in a fairly favorable light, IMA. He has such stature that I doubt they would do otherwise. So for those who rely on the MSM for their soundbites got a nice bit of Clint that fits in with his overall persona.
I can’t judge how off-putting Clint’s craziness and Ryan’s lying is without context next week. Like more quotes from Biden claiming that Republicans will put Black people “back in chains” or that Romney/Bain killed some lady by laying off her husband.
Vote Gary Johnson 2012. Anyone is better than these candidates. :(
Not necessarily true. Even though I thought the Eastwood speech was weird (in the extreme), very little of the Romney speech will be in the public consciences 30 day from now, other than as sound-bites in the two campaign’s ads, but people will be talking about how Dirty Harry supports Romney and things Obama should be fired for the rest of the cycle.
I ain’t no victim, word. I was merely commenting on how CE’s speech was portrayed in the media. It is common knowledge that many folk don’t watch the interminably boring conventions, they just watch the sound bites on the 10pm news. How do we know that? We look at the ratings.
Nothing conspiratorial to that at all. Nice try, tho.
The speeches put forth the message that all of us, African Americans, Latinos, whites and asians, rich and poor, have a common interest in building a better future of security and prosperity for our children. Giving women “free” contraception while Obama’s failed economic policies have cost women over 600,000 jobs since he took office, while dropping family income by $4,000 during his “recovery” certainly shows Obama’s misplaced priorities for what women need.
The history and mechanics of economic recovery and growth are clearly on Mitt’s and Ryan’s side.
The only question in this campaign is whether there are enough “low information” and parasitic government takers voting to re-elect BHO.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Aug 31, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
@Lakewood, sorry, forgot about that.
Rubio’s line about immigrants escaping other countries where poor means you are always poor, uneducated means you will always be uneducated, and where there is no possibility for upward mobility struck a chord with me. I’m sorry to see so few here and elsewhere discussing it today.
Clint’s speech was the best Oscar acceptance speech since Jack Palance’s. But there are implicit rules (invisible rules?) to ceremony. It went on too long but the first half at least wasn’t so bad; it was just the wrong, wrong, wrong context.
I gotta give credit to #47 for nailing this one guys. Otherwise, MR (no pun intended) didn’t change anything. Something has to change for this fella to win. “I’m gonna create 12 million jobs” sorry dude that trickle down GOP Econ 101 simply doesn’t move Americans to the polls. Two candidates, two “job creators” No jobs. In contrast to that backdrop, yeah Clint was entertaining.
Mr Atsaves, I watched Rubio’s whole speech last nite. Powerful stuff. Romney’s immigrant story is powerful as well. Unfortunately, Romney’s story doesn’t fit the left wing meme on the subject. Both the ethnic portion and the rags to richs portion. People also forget that Romney left his fathers’ fortune behind and made his own. A true American success story. Rubio’s part in this is also clear to me. Powerful stuff about his disabled grandfather and what he meant to the Senator.
Thanks, Soccermom. Huntsman’s a rare commodity, a sharp, reasonable politician with a sense of humor.
One hopes he finds another prominent position in national public service no matter who wins in November.
The Mormon experience in America is fascinating, from Upstate New York to Nauvoo to the Great Salt Lake, literally building an empire in the desert based on community, good works and faith in a matter of decades — with some pretty Wild West stuff along the way.
DuPage Dan - I did not bring up plural marriage. Huntsman did — on the last night of the Republican National Convention, just a few minutes after Romney accepted his party’s nomination. Huntsman clearly came with an agenda, as you will see when you view the clips.
Obviously, as the granddaughter of Mormons and a hajj myself (yup, I’ve been to Salt Lake City), I’m not opposing Romney because of his faith. Nor have I heard President Obama mention Romney’s faith.
I will, however, mention that I think it’s very broad-minded of me as an Episcopalian (the faith of many of our finest presidents) to support a Congregationalist in this election….
I just listened to a bit of video that came from the RNC last nite. The speaker was Jane Edmonds, a self proclaimed liberal democrat who was appointed to serve in Romney’s cabinet during his term as governor of Massachusetts. Makes for a wonderful listen. Didn’t get any mention here - only old angry white men and Mormons.
DuPage Dan — Not to get all technical with you, but to say that this thread is focusing on “Mormons” is not actually fact-based. Your post was the first to mention “Mormon.” I merely noted that Huntsman spent the last night of his party’s convention throwing darts at the nominee from the guest spot on Colbert.
Please note that there have been 10 mentions of the word “Mormon” on this thread. Four were in your own posts; two were in a post that quotes you, and two were mine stating that my father’s family was Mormon, originally from western New York, and that as a child of Mormons I have no problem with Romney’s faith.
Three people posting have mentioned Mormons: you, me, and Word. So it is something of a stretch to say that that “many who are posting here would like for the issues to be Mormonism…”
If the issue were likability, I have to say that Huntsman and Obama would seem pretty evenly matched, fwiw.
sure, soccormom, no one mentions the word Mormon. Your post referenced Huntsman and Romney sharing an ancestor and polygamy and we’re supposed to think you meant they were polygamous Methodists. Right.
Sorry I didn’t know you had Mormon relatives. The post and the context were troubling.
Word, the fact of historic polygamous marriages in the Mormon culture is a sore spot for many people - both for supporters of Romney and detractors. The fact that there are entities in the political realm who have in the past, and appear to be trying to right now, disparage the Mormon religion and Mitt Romney specifically is evident in various sectors of this country. That is a simple fact. You claiming that it is not an issue doesn’t make it so.
Yeah, and the fact that people continue to remark that the GOP is populated only by “angry old white men” and that this means they are out of touch with the melting pot of America is a reality as well. Your saying it isn’t doesn’t make it true. The other fact is that in general, 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative while 20% consider themselves as liberal. While we can debate those numbers, the reality is that no one end of the spectrum can declare that they are the majority. The struggle for any candidate is to connect with the middle, the moderates and independents. Pejoratve references to a religion and/or the ethnic make-up one party or the other is a tool used sway voters, successful or not, there it is. I am only commenting on it - ain’t gettin all worked up.
I don’t know anyone in a leadership position in the GOP who functions with a mindset of singularity of make-up in the party. The number of folks from all walks of life who are involved in the GOP (and can be seen at the RNC) proves that. Can they do better? You betcha. Do they want to? Have been for years. The proof is in the number of women and minorities in positions of power in GOP administrations is clear for all to see. One pundit pontificating is not the whole party.
DD, I don’t think there’s any hope that you will understand my point. But let’s try one more time….
I don’t give a hoot about how many spouses somebody’s great, great, great grandfather may or may not have had. My point was that JOHN HUNTSMAN brought it up on television last night. I did not. Word did not. John Huntsman did.
John Huntsman brought up polygamous marriage, knowing full well that it is a sore spot for Mitt Romney. John Huntsman brought it up on the last night of the Republican National Convention, the night everybody is supposed to hold hands and sing the Republican version of Kum-Ba-Yah. John Huntsman brought it up in a studio in New York City, when all the other Republicans were in Tampa applauding under the balloon drop.
That wasn’t the only sore spot that John Huntsman managed to touch during a relatively short interview. He clearly was prepped with a long list of talking points that could have been titled, “Things Mitt Romney Would Rather I Did Not Mention.” He talked about Super Pacs. He talked about Ryan’s apparent misstatements about President Obama’s record. He called the current GOP a flippin’ “holding company for fundraising.”
And that, dear DD, is what I found worthy of mention — that a high-profile Republican would choose to spend the last night of the convention throwing bombs at the nominee, who is also a shirt-tail relation.
In looking at my original post, I realize that I did not make it clear that I was struck by the in-house politics of Huntsman’s appearance. I guess I thought that, to this audience, it would be clear that the issue was not the mention of polygamy but that Huntsman was the one mentioning it.
And incidentally — I thought it was pretty cool of Huntsman to talk about his forebears’ polygamy openly, without apology or shame. It’s a fact, and he dealt with it in a mature and open way. And I gotta say — if the Huntsman I saw last night is the nominee in ‘16, we might see the unusual sight of Soccermom hesitating before she casts her vote for the top of the ticket.
Dupage Dan, Mitt Romney did not leave his fathers fortune behind. Where do you think he got that $400,000 in stocks, that he and Ann lived on. His father gave those stocks to him. Adjusted for inflation, 400 grand in 1965 would be worth nearly 3 million today.