Cole writes: "You can't see me, but I'm talking to Clint Eastwood sitting spectrally in an empty chair, and I am replying to his confused rant."

Clint Eastwood speaks at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, 08/30/12. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Top Ten Clint Eastwood Empty-Chair Falsehoods

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

02 September 12

ou can’t see me, but I’m talking to Clint Eastwood sitting spectrally in an empty chair, and I am replying to his confused rant.

Mr. Eastwood, you called the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay penitentiary a broken promise. President Obama was prevented from closing Guantanamo by the Republicans in Congress, which refused to allocate the funds necessary to end it. Do you remember this Washington Post headline, “House acts to block closing of Guantanamo”?

Mr. Eastwood you called “stupid” the idea of trying terrorists who attacked New York in a civilian courtroom in New York. But what would have better vindicated the strengths of America’s rule of law, the thing about the US most admired abroad? Mr. Eastwood, perhaps you spent so many years playing vigilantes who just blew people away (people who in the real world we would have needed to try to establish their guilt or innocence) that you want to run our judicial system as a kangaroo court.

You complained that there are 23 million unemployed Americans. Actually there are 12.8 million unemployed Americans. But there are no measures by which W. created more jobs per month on average during his presidency than has Obama, and there is good reason to blame current massive unemployment on Bush’s policies of deregulating banks and other financial institutions, which caused the crash of 2008.

You criticized President Obama for giving a target date for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan of 2014, and alleged that Romney said, “Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?” But George W. Bush set a target date of 31 December, 2011, for withdrawal from Iraq, and did so in negotiation with the Iraqi parliament. Was that also a bad idea? Have you considered that NATO allies and the government of President Hamid Karzai may have demanded an announced withdrawal date as a prerequisite of continued cooperation with the US there? And, just for your information, Gov. Romney hasn’t called for US troops to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.

Mr. Eastwood, you made fun of Joe Biden as the ‘intellect of the Democratic Party.’ Vice President Biden was chair or ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, helped to save the Bosnian Muslims from genocide, and passed the Violence against Women Act. I haven’t always agreed with him myself, but he has been among our more thoughtful contributors to American foreign policy. You, on the other hand, like to pretend to shoot down large numbers of people over the course of a violent two-hour fantasy.

You criticized President Obama for ‘talking about student loans.’ The Republican Party, especially Paul Ryan, wants to take away the government-backed loans on which millions of students depend, at a time when student indebtedness is at an all-time high. Just because some people are way overpaid for play-acting doesn’t mean that ordinary people don’t need student loans to get the credentials that allow them to make a better life for themselves.

Mr. Eastwood, you criticized President Obama for saying he is an ‘ecological man’ but flying in Air Force One. Under President Obama, non-hydro forms of green energy in the United States have doubled from 3 percent of electricity production to 6 percent. Obama’s tax credits have been a big reason why. In contrast, Mr. Romney wants to get rid of credits for wind energy, which will hurt the Iowa economy, e.g., and is in the back pocket of Big Oil, so that he will stand in the way of green energy. I think doubling renewables rather offsets an occasional jet ride. And, it is Obama’s policies that will get us to the solar-driven airplane, not Romney’s.

You made fun of Obama because he has a law degree from Harvard. I just want you to sit in your empty chair for a while, and think about that.

You called Mr. Romney a ‘stellar businessman,’ but his business appears to have been to send American jobs to China.

I don’t know who suggested to you that you address us at the end and say, “Make my day,” with the implication that we should vote Romney-Ryan. But what I remember is, that phrase is a threat you are going to do bad things to us.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+208 # Jyl 2012-09-02 09:50

Why would it not be mentioned in this article, under point 9, that the "stellar businessman" is also a lawyer (even though it's difficult to believe this isn't merely an internet degree)? There was a comment in Eastwood's ramblings that lawyers shouldn't be presidents.

+209 # Regina 2012-09-02 10:56

Yes, and Romney's law degree is from Obama's alma mater for Law, Harvard. And he didn't qualify for the Law Review. The "stellar businessman" starred in job destruction.

-73 # lexy677 2012-09-02 14:58

No NO Jyl and Regina Romney holds an MBA from Harvard NOT a law degree. He is NOT a Lawyer: please get your facts straight.

+61 # drshafer 2012-09-02 16:03

Quoting lexy677:

No NO Jyl and Regina Romney holds an MBA from Harvard NOT a law degree. He is NOT a Lawyer: please get your facts straight.

Romney holds a joint J.D.-M.B.A. degree. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/us/romney-merged-law-and-business-at-harvard.html?pagewanted=all

+23 # lexy677 2012-09-02 19:07

Thanks. I thought he only had an MBA

+19 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:07

Quoting lexy677:

Thanks. I thought he only had an MBA

Kudos for your comment. It's not often you find someone who backs Romney, even if it's only a small point who admits he was wrong. You rock, my friend!

+22 # kalpal 2012-09-03 12:30

GW BUSH bought an MBA and the GOP gleefully chortled that we had an MBA-CEO President at last. this lasted less than 6 month because it became obvious that Bush's degree was not earned and that he had no idea what being a successful CEO does because he had never been one.

+10 # Pancho 2012-09-03 20:30

He was "successful" with the Texas Rangers because he was able to seize private property using eminent domain for the stadium complex. He paid cents on the dollar and spent years in court suing the ranch owners whom he stole it from. They got very little compensation thanks to the family ties.

+6 # bmiluski 2012-09-04 12:24

Yes, but he was never allowed into the front office. His job was to sit in the stands and schmooze with businessmen.

+10 # unitedwestand 2012-09-03 18:15

In any case, that Clint made that a negative point was ridiculous. Many articles have been written about Lyin' Ryan's speech and all the falsehoods, but this is the first time I've seen a list of all the lies that Clint managed in his ramblings with an invisible person, not sitting in a chair.

+5 # nimbleswitch 2012-09-03 15:20

Yes, that's true. And he did take and pass the Michigan State Bar, but he never practice law. So he has a J.D. and was admitted to a state bar. He was just never a practicing lawyer. (Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, p. 97.)

+56 # lexy677 2012-09-02 15:17

....and why all this fuss about this flatulent old fool?...who spent all of his life pretending to be someone else and unfortunately getting well paid for it?. Republicans chose Reagan, Dan Quayle and George W. Bush.....one more "blinking idiot" like this wizened, smelly bag of bones to champion their cause shouldn't surprise any one.

+192 # NanFan 2012-09-02 09:59

In the "old days" when Eastwood was young, if he'd have been on-stage, giving that speech, to a general population, they would have gotten out "the hook" and pulled him off-stage. The audience would have been booing, not jumping up and down, clapping with glee, as the Republicans were.

Eastwood is as sick as Romney and Ryan. So they put him on stage to feed the celebrity hungry crowd of numb-nut Republicans.

Huge mistake, but they won't think so, and Romney/Ryan could get elected. That prospect is the scariest thing of all today, almost as scary as bringing back Bush/Cheney!

N.

+54 # Jyl 2012-09-02 11:42

Quoting NanFan:

In the "old days" when Eastwood was young, if he'd have been on-stage, giving that speech, to a general population, they would have gotten out "the hook" and pulled him off-stage. The audience would have been booing, not jumping up and down, clapping with glee, as the Republicans were.

Eastwood is as sick as Romney and Ryan. So they put him on stage to feed the celebrity hungry crowd of numb-nut Republicans.

Huge mistake, but they won't think so, and Romney/Ryan could get elected. That prospect is the scariest thing of all today, almost as scary as bringing back Bush/Cheney!

N.

Actually, Nan, I think if he were younger, people would have assumed him to be doing an acting job for a movie such as On Golden Pond.

I agree it's a huge mistake but people are far too star-struck to separate the dreadful dialogue from the famous actor.

+77 # TexasCat 2012-09-02 13:49

It pained me to see an actor who was not really prepared use this as a way to 'entertain' an audience. I've done theater all my life and for the kind of thing that Mr. Eastwood was doing takes far more preparation than when there is another actor to react to. I also don't know why anyone would call what he was doing a 'speech'. A speech has a point and material that engages thoughtful participation. Mr. Eastwood's 'act' was a really bad display of disrespect for the President and for his audience. He got some cheap laughs with some cheap shots and obscene comments and that's beneath someone who has won awards for some quality material. I feel sad for him. He's better than what he showed at the convention.

+29 # Pancho 2012-09-02 16:57

I agree. He's made some very good movies, especially those which he has produced and directed. "Bird" was one of my favorites.

Still, I wondered at the start if he wasn't going senile. I was uncomfortable, because I'm almost as old as he is. There but for the grade of whomever go I.

+2 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:10

Quoting Pancho:

I agree. He's made some very good movies, especially those which he has produced and directed. "Bird" was one of my favorites.

Still, I wondered at the start if he wasn't going senile. I was uncomfortable, because I'm almost as old as he is. There but for the grade of whomever go I.

Ypu may be on to something there. He was a very good mayor of Big Sur and a decent, moderate Republican. It seems that if he isn't getting senile, and his recent movies don't appear to show that, it may be that he's just become weird uncle Clint. We all have one of those and they get worse with age and frustration at aging.

+7 # Old Man 2012-09-03 13:25

Quoting flippancy:

Quoting Pancho:
I agree. He's made some very good movies, especially those which he has produced and directed. "Bird" was one of my favorites.

Still, I wondered at the start if he wasn't going senile. I was uncomfortable, because I'm almost as old as he is. There but for the grade of whomever go I.

Ypu may be on to something there. He was a very good mayor of Big Sur and a decent, moderate Republican. It seems that if he isn't getting senile, and his recent movies don't appear to show that, it may be that he's just become weird uncle Clint. We all have one of those and they get worse with age and frustration at aging.

I believe it was Carmel Calif. he was Mayor an no-one like him then.

+5 # Pancho 2012-09-03 20:54

It was Carmel, one term, '86-'88. I thought he was well thought of there. My only friend in town at the time was one of the first people in the U.S. to die of transfusion contracted HIV, so I couldn't ask her.

That was the disease Ronnie Raygun would not mention for six years after it was discovered.

At the time, Ronnie said, "After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons?"

This from the man who banged dozens of starlets at the Garden of Allah hotel.

Eastwood supported McCain in '08 and met with John Boehner earlier this year to discuss strategy.

When he mentioned the time he "cried," I though he was going talk about his palimony suit with Sandra Locke.

He also mentioned Jon Voight being at the convention, to infer that a lot of Hollywood professionals support Romney. Voight would be at home giving the keynote speech at a neo-Nazi convention.

+5 # Kalamakuaikalani 2012-09-03 20:57

Quoting flippancy:

Quoting Pancho:
I agree. He's made some very good movies, especially those which he has produced and directed. "Bird" was one of my favorites.

Still, I wondered at the start if he wasn't going senile. I was uncomfortable, because I'm almost as old as he is. There but for the grade of whomever go I.

Ypu may be on to something there. He was a very good mayor of Big Sur and a decent, moderate Republican. It seems that if he isn't getting senile, and his recent movies don't appear to show that, it may be that he's just become weird uncle Clint. We all have one of those and they get worse with age and frustration at aging.

WRONG! Clint was never the mayor of Big Sur. Big Sur doesn't even have a mayor. He was the mayor of Carmel though & a terrible one at that.

0 # God Dont Like Ugly 2012-09-03 18:54

There is a very different, quite interesting, point of view penned by Ms. Rene Thompson in RSN's Writing for Godot section. It is well worth the few minutes it takes to read, and certainly worth considering:

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/13236-they-should-have-seen-it-coming

+112 # fishmother 2012-09-02 12:12

The marraige of Romney/Ryan has a lot in common with Bush/Cheney. A weak candidate for head of state and a vicious VP

+37 # Pancho 2012-09-02 17:01

Ryan, as evil as he is, would be no match for Darth Chaney. And Romney is vastly brighter than Commander Codpiece.

That said, they wouldn't be much of an improvement.

What scares the shit out of me, and will have me working (my state is a fundamentalist so there's no way Obama wins, even if Romney's a Mormon) on his campaign in swing states.

I think Holder is one of the worst Attorneys General we've had in a Democratic administration, if not the absolute worst. Of course, he's far, far better than Mitchell, Meese, Ashcroft and Gonzales. Two of them wound up being indicted for serious felonies and Gonzales certainly should have been.

+7 # Pancho 2012-09-03 21:02

I lost a sentence fragment. Sorry.

I meant to say that the big prize in November is whether we get a Supreme Court that will be as poisonous for the next 40 years as it has been for the last twelve, the Koch brothers era.

We've had Thomas for damn near 21 years and he could last that long again. Roberts could be around for 30 more. Even Kagan looks great next to those goniffs. Ruth Bader Ginsberg won't be there much longer. Can we afford another Scalia or Alito or Rehnquist to be appointed.

+4 # robniel 2012-09-04 07:00

Sounds like you didn't like the clown act in this circus.

+197 # lisamoskow 2012-09-02 10:26

Please don't call Romney "Gov. Romney". He is a FORMER governor.
He thinks that being a vulture capitalist entitles him to be in the highest office in the land. He is a vulture politician. He is the most arrogant candidate running for president I have seen in my lifetime. He takes a European tour (as if he is president!) and tarnishes the US reputation BEFORE the election. His record at Bain Capital qualifies him for jail time.

+11 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:13

Sadly, his actions at Bain should have been illegal, but thanks to laws paid for by big business it wasn't. We've had two businessman presidents, Bush II and Hoover. With a record like that, it seems more rational to ban businessmen from the presidency and even better form ANY public position.

+10 # Old Man 2012-09-03 13:38

The article in Rolling stone gives a person good reason to wonder how he rigged Bain & company to play government against Banking to leverage and get the government to bail out Bain Co. & Romney 30 million dollars. There you have it corporate Welfare.

+5 # akh752 2012-09-04 05:53

It is protocol to refer to former officials by the highest office they held-- General Colin Powell, President Bill Clinton, Governor Jennifer Granholm, etc.

+160 # michelle 2012-09-02 10:34

"I don’t know who suggested to you that you address us at the end and say, “Make my day,” with the implication that we should vote Romney-Ryan.But what I remember is, that phrase is a threat you are going to do bad things to us."

Wow, that is the most truthful statement uttered about the republican convention and Clint Eastwood's sad and rambling performance. I can only hope the American people are smart enough to figure out the lies.

I would add to the list Eastwood's attempt to portray President Obama as an angry man, an angry black man, sitting in the chair is equally disturbing and untruthful. President Obama has always remained civil with republicans, even those who make me want to put my foot through the TV screen when I hear them talk.

Mr. Eastwood needs to offer an apology to the President and the American people for the disrespectful and untruthful speech, one our civil President is sure to accept.

+47 # NAVYVET 2012-09-02 13:13

I have often wished that President Obama WOULD GET ANGRY! They deserve it.

+32 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-02 17:20

I am glad he does not stoop to their level.

+153 # Nell H 2012-09-02 10:37

The Republicans support giving more money to billionaires and turning Medicare over to the insurance companies.

I do not understand why any ordinary person would vote to have more money to those who don't need it and turn our medical decisions over to insurance companies.

+48 # Observer 47 2012-09-02 13:23

Nell, I think that's the most succinct statement about the Rethugs I've heard so far!

+49 # pernsey 2012-09-02 14:22

Quoting Nell H:

The Republicans support giving more money to billionaires and turning Medicare over to the insurance companies.

I do not understand why any ordinary person would vote to have more money to those who don't need it and turn our medical decisions over to insurance companies.

Oooh I know why they vote for more money for billionaires, because they watch only Fox news and Hannity's America and they think they are getting the real news. Its just hysterical to watch in my real life. To watch people on food stamps, medicare, and social security telling me why Obama is horrible and why Mitt the twit is so great. I usually just say I dont agree, check your facts, and dont watch so much opinion shows they arent the real news. At that point they get my drift Im not a sheeple and change the subject. They dont know they are being lied to, thats why they will vote for Mitt. They believe all the lies spewing out of Fox news about Obama and they assume they are true. They live in a fact free zone, they dont bother to do any research outside of Fox...thats why they do it.

+11 # jimbo 2012-09-02 19:54

More money for billionairs feeds the republican money machine. The recipients of the money send it back to further corrupt the politicians, who respond by feeding back to further corrupt. But make no mistake, if Democrats gain enough power, they'll be the recipients. Time for a new revolution.

+11 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:16

Quoting jimbo:

More money for billionairs feeds the republican money machine. The recipients of the money send it back to further corrupt the politicians, who respond by feeding back to further corrupt. But make no mistake, if Democrats gain enough power, they'll be the recipients. Time for a new revolution.

Democrats had that power for decades and didn't misuse it. Republicans are all evil, only a few Democrats are.

+86 # rp7943 2012-09-02 10:44

It wouldn't surprise me if Eastwood thought that a certain B-movie actor was a better President than Barack Obama. Eastwood should stick to acting and directing instead of dabbling in politics and making a fool out of himself.

+48 # Virginia 2012-09-02 11:20

Clint Eastwood is a paid actor. And about that - if he wasn't paid for his appearance was it a campaign donation?

#1. Why not leave Guantanamo open to use for the banksters?
#2. Have you seen the state and federal judiciary financial disclosure statements recently? If you think the Repugs are bad, many of these Judge's are highly invested in Wall Street. If blowing up the WTC had anything to do with the worldwide Wall Street swindle it'd be hard to find a judge without conflict. It's just more obvious to insider Republicans.
#3. This is the ONLY one Clint may have gotten right. The taxpayers only see the reported figures. There are twice as many people out of work trying to reinvent their careers and struggling with self-employment but not on the public dole. They are out of work because the financial system crashed under Bush and was deregulated on purpose by stupidity in the 1990's by a Republican Congress.

Romney wants to be another Reagan - he's not - so whose left in that generation but Clint. Just wonder how much he cost?!

+31 # Regina 2012-09-02 13:08

Deregulation is not "stupidity" -- it's CUPIDITY, which means GREED (it has nothing to do with Cupid). Not that Republicans aren't stupid, but even those who might be a tad brighter than most are greedy. The top sharks (Kochs, Adelson, Norquist, Rove etc.) are greediest.

+54 # David Starr 2012-09-02 11:51

Given his above remarks, it's evident that Eastwood would say anything that even goes beyond Orwellianism, to badmouth Obama, although Obama has been, in his "art of compromise," rather too forgiving, or directly put, rather politcally spineless. It's a rather fascinating arguement Eastwood puts up. As Cole responds, the Repubs have usually prevented Obama from doing the very things he criticizes him for, being the party of no. I don't expect it to occur to Eastwood that the Repubs have just as much had a hand, if not more, in preventing the very things he implies he "supports." But how can you expect a longtime conservative to blame the Repubs? They are so Right they're usually, overwhelming, wrong. And I suppose it's a rather Right characteristic to make an ass of yourself by mouthing a long dead cliche, "Make my day." Politcally, Eastwood has indeed sounded like a Dirty Harry cartoon caricature. Clint, it's over. Don't regress into a long dead infantile B/W machoism of a ficticious detective. It really makes you look like a bandejo. Tragic, I may be wasteing my breath, condidering the Right's political brain cells have long been extinct.

-70 # Glen 2012-09-02 11:52

With a few hundred minus points waiting out there to pounce, I must say this is nothing more than a WITCH HUNT against Clint Eastwood.

Go after the nitwits who truly DO run the government. Those who are in charge and taking your rights away. Eastwood, as I have said is NOT in charge. He is entertainment.

+23 # reiverpacific 2012-09-02 14:05

Quoting Glen:

With a few hundred minus points waiting out there to pounce, I must say this is nothing more than a WITCH HUNT against Clint Eastwood.

Go after the nitwits who truly DO run the government. Those who are in charge and taking your rights away. Eastwood, as I have said is NOT in charge. He is entertainment.

So what was he doing giving "performance" speech that pretty much, from what I've heard from credible sources like the BBC, "Democracy Now" and "The Guardian", overshadowed Twit's acceptance speech in all it's flowery insincerity.
I quite like Clint Eastwood the actor and director but is it really just coincidence that the Rethugs had to have SOMEONE with a bit of charisma and sense of humor in this rogue's gallery of humorless, lying and ruthless wannabe slave-makers that are striving for a one-party system?

-28 # Glen 2012-09-02 15:14

Once more with feeling: Clint Eastwood is not in charge. It is entertainment.

He may have "overshadowed" Twit's speech, but that is all it was.

Defending Eastwood is not defending the Republicans. Consider the amount of Dung dumped on Eastwood because of this. It proves just how stupid people can be in being distracted from the real problems in the U.S.

-13 # jimattrell 2012-09-02 16:07

Isn't that the truth...

+6 # reiverpacific 2012-09-03 18:16

Quoting Glen:

Once more with feeling: Clint Eastwood is not in charge. It is entertainment.

He may have "overshadowed" Twit's speech, but that is all it was.

Defending Eastwood is not defending the Republicans. Consider the amount of Dung dumped on Eastwood because of this. It proves just how stupid people can be in being distracted from the real problems in the U.S.

I suppose, with feeling: that this is reflective of the fact that politics has become infotainment and the issues are wrapped up with so much tinsel, like a present wrapped to look like anything but what it is, that they can be bent and poked constantly without revealing anything.
B.T.W., I tempered my opinion at least, by stating what I liked about him and would love to have a cocktail and a game of golf with him (on his own course) but at the RNC, he sounded a lot different than in a prior address actually criticizing the current Rethugs, especially Dimwits/Cheney and the Tea Baggers for their extremism and danger to freedom.
Wonder who got to him? He sure as Hell doesn't need the money.

-1 # Glen 2012-09-04 04:30

You're right. I missed your point in attempting to insert some common sense into the chaos of nonsense. Folks enjoy having a snit about the likes of Eastwood because they can't actually do anything about the government and what is happening in their lives.

Yes, the government set the example of theatrics and money spent. Of course, and without even needing to say it, the media contributes to the nonsense. A number of rather dignified "journalists" chose to criticize Eastwood rather than focus on the milquetoast Romney, who is far and away the more important character.

I will not attempt to second guess the reason for Eastwood speaking at that convention, but he did, and it is over. Yep, folks were certainly entertained.

+3 # David Starr 2012-09-04 10:20

I possibly would agree if it was PURELY entertainment that Eastwood has been involved in; only that Eastwood is shown above making political statements, and seriously. Plus, I believe he was once mayor (governnor?) of Carmel, California. If you're implying that his political involvement is purely entertainment, then that's very sad. It reflects an unfortunate characterisic of U.S. politics, especially today: Melodramatics over a sincere look and prioritization of important issues, i.e, being that it's usually and precisley a show makes it all the more ethically bankrupt. And Clint probably won't receive an Academy Award for his performance described in Cole's article. It proves how stupid people, especially among the Right, can belittle real U.S., etc, problems by playing a role that would qualify them for a position in a three-ring circus. Damn shame.

+4 # Glen 2012-09-04 11:16

I understand, David. Nevertheless, Eastwood is not running for office, nor does he have any real power. His talk was snidely humorous and inaccurate, and that was it. His mayoral tenure is over.

We have much more to worry about than Eastwood. That was my point. Only a fraction of the folks commenting on Eastwood have commented on recent subjects as death and destruction in Syria and the Middle East, serious ocean pollution, the crimes of the U.S. government occurring today, and so on. Eastwood is not worth it.

+2 # David Starr 2012-09-04 12:28

True, Eastwood is not worth it. Obviously, there are issues that go light years beyond a politically-ine pt "entertainer." Still, he's obviously a well-known celebrity and the masses take notice of that quite a bit of the time,i.e., an appeal to "authority." I'm reminded of CA voters' excuses for electing "Aanold": The terminator and its line, "I'll be back," where, I'm sure those were actual reasons. If someone like Eastwood is playing an Orwellian game-even if it's tasteless "entertainment" -like he does above, then I would take a few shots at him, at the least, as a continuing effort to oppose the Right. Besides, with the article published here, it's a tempting target.

+11 # drshafer 2012-09-02 21:41

Keep in mind that he was CHOSEN to appear by those who want to be in charge and hope to run the government.

-12 # Glen 2012-09-03 03:37

Being chosen by those who want to be in charge still means it was entertainment. He simply appears as an adjunct to the rest of the crew participating in the convention. He isn't running for office and obviously has no influence on anyone at all.

If this was not done on purpose as a diversion, it could not have come across any more so. It is all everyone is discussing, rather than the candidates and their lies.

+33 # cabotool 2012-09-02 11:57

Hip Hip Hooray for Juan Cole. I have always admired your wise words about the apparent hatred of Republicans for all Arabs! You have more wisdom in your little finger than in the sum of the brains of all Republicans that I have heard speak.

If Clint wanted to make a realistic "empty chair" interview he would ask George Bush why he spoke of seeing the plane crash into the Twin Towers when no such television coverage existed for him to have seen at the time he spoke!! See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5-_W6ixfQ

And later when George Bush said on camera that he wished people would not be trying to deflect attention away from the guilty.

See both lies at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related

Check it out if you want to know the truth!!

+54 # lourdmar 2012-09-02 12:27

Mr. Cole's brilliant summation of the actor's offensive performance ought to be required reading for our press including non-partisan Radio. I'm often mystified by a 'two sides to every issue' theory by which equal time is given to the proven lie as well as the proven fact. In fact these days both are easy to corroborate in an instant. I find it infuriating because the lie gets exposure and validity.Additi onally more often than not right wing guests are louder,less polite or downright rude or out and out dirty fighters and more likely to talk through the other speaker's response. Meantime the interviewer sits helpless. What message does the uninformed American get from this skewed 'equal time'? One that makes FACTS debatable? An opinion is debatable but the a fact is a fact. Lost in the process is the resulting confusion for the mostly under-informed American public for whom one particular interview can be a deciding moment. Something is very wrong with this mistaken and delusional concept. Were there two sides to Hitler's crimes? to Slavery? to racism? to human rights? Let's recognize lies and distorted video clips for what they are. Let's make liars accountable for their mendacity and let us be loud and proud of exposing the lie - go for it Press!

+19 # Doll 2012-09-02 14:07

What? There is a non-partisan radio station out there? I thought Clear Channel and Sinclair bought up all the radio stations except NPR. I stopped listening to the radio.

You are right. There is way too much "two sides to every issue" including lies.

-16 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:58

I'm afraid that until we elect a "uniter" in the White House you won't find what you are looking for. Our media consists of well-meaning journalists who attended liberal schools and who want to make the world a better place. Problem is, they usually do not have any real-world experience and lean left in their approach. That turns me off and so I seek right-leaning reality radio that has liberal content as well. Almost every middle-of-road major city in America has such a radio station but they are hard to find.

+4 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-03 23:41

"Almost every middle-of-road major city in America has such a radio station but they are hard to find."

Almost? Middle-of-the-r oad? Major City? Hard to find?
Name one!
Were you able to find any?
Does ClearChannel have any among its close to 1500 stations?

"I seek right-leaning reality radio that has liberal content as well."

Are you aware of the word "oxymoron" and its accompanying concept?

When you say "uniter" do you mean someone like Harvard MBA, Dubya?

Those damn 'liberal' schools; graduating people who want to make the world better. Shame on them!

+2 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-04 08:58

BeaDee,
I think he means a radio station that has a liberal on at 10 pm on Sunday night or is the second banana on the AM drive program. That used to be the model in the Right Wing bastion of Boston, MA. They dropped that pretense a number of years back; so my guess is that jimattrell is not listening in a truly major market, or at least not to a major station. (Folks from Boston, Jim Braude is a good guy, but overall he is a centrist Democrat. Santos is not on a major station.)

+13 # David Starr 2012-09-02 12:29

Forgot something: If there's any movie I do like from Eastwood, it's his early film, "Play Misty for Me." It had some depth. And Eastwood, in a rare reaction of a character of his, actually looks sometimes vulnerable; when compared to the Dirty Harry stereotype.

+11 # TexasCat 2012-09-02 13:39

This is my favorite Eastwood movie and your description of it is right on.

0 # David Starr 2012-09-04 10:23

Thank you. I recently saw it, and not only once but about three times. Other than that, I cannot stomach the rest, at least most, of his films.

+28 # Lolanne 2012-09-02 12:38

Eastwood: an empty suit talking to an empty chair...sad, really. I've seen many of his movies and used to respect his acting ability. Even thought recently, before all this happened, about renting the ones I missed along the way. No way that's gonna happen now! Somebody back up there said he should have stuck to acting and left politics alone. How VERY true!

-78 # ditorac1 2012-09-02 13:03

It is most interesting to see so many intelligent comments. It is no wonder that partisen politics persist considering the way each party feels about each other. Most of what I see here is democrats significant hate of republicans and on the conservative sites I see just the opposite. What we need is a leader that can bring the parties together. It is obviously not what we have now. Broken promises are just that, broken promises. A good leader convinces Congress. For two years obama had a democratic majority but still got nothing significant done except by executive orders. My philosophy for this election is to not vote for any incumbent across the board.
If obama is elected this time--katy bar the door--he will do everything he can to turn the US into Europe in a NY minute. If that is what you want for your kids and grandkids--so be it. I'm old enough for it not to matter personally but I have lived many years in Europe and am convinced it is not what I would want if I was an 18 year old.
God Bless America

+32 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-02 21:57

Jack Thomas, (ditorac1)
I would love to play high stakes poker with you.
You have a very obvious 'tell.'
You capitalize 'Congress;' you capitalize 'US;' you capitalize 'Europe;' you capitalize 'NY;'you capitalize 'God;' you capitalize 'America;' you even capitalize 'Bless;' but when it comes to the President of these United States, the Commander in Chief, you use lower case, not once, but twice.
Not too subtle, are you Jack?
Tell us how you REALLY feel!
Free advice: Stay aware from Las Vegas.

+22 # SpyderJan 2012-09-03 08:18

Quoting ditorac1:

For two years obama had a democratic majority but still got nothing significant done except by executive orders.

Obama did not have a fililbuster-pro of majority for 2 years. Check out this link: http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!! And as the Republicans had no agenda other than stopping the President from getting anything passed, they used the fillibuster more times than had ever occured in our history.

+13 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:29

What I've seen is hatred for liberals by conservatives and hatred for ignorance by liberals. Multiple studies show conservative defiance of listening to facts if they don't agree with their preconceived notions and liberal willingness to change their minds when presented with evidence. We don't hate conservatives, we pity them for their willingness to be pigheaded in support of their mistakes.

-18 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:52

You are correctamungo in your observation. I am conservative and my wife is liberal but what separates us is pretty small compared to what joins us. President Obama can only win this election by separating American's and demonizing those that disagree with him. He doesn't have a record of success to point to so what's left is partisan behavior that proves that he never intended on representing us all.... Just those on his side.

+12 # bingers 2012-09-03 14:08

Once again, with the house in the hands of the just say no Republicans and when Pelosi ran the House and passed 44 jobs creation bills that the just say no Republicans filibustered saying Obama has been a failure is another example of conservative lies. Obama has bent over backwards to compromise with Repblicans and they have just spit in his face.

Conservatives are far more concerned with regaining the power that caused all our problems and they don't care how badly they damage America in doing so.

I have conservatives I love, but I cannot respect their political ideas which are just plain stupid!

+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-04 09:05

Exactly.

The Republicans obviously do not care about Americans. If they did, they would present their own jobs bills. Or, they could run on why they blocked all of the President's bills. The only explanation is that for reason #1 they have no job creation ideas and reason #2 the only reason they blocked the bills was so that Obama would not be elected.
I believe its probably about 90% reason #2. But even if its 100% reason #1, why would anyone vote for a party that has no ideas on how to create jobs? And if its reason #2, they only care about themselves, than about all Americans. The very epitome of partisan politics.

+1 # David Starr 2012-09-04 10:35

ditorac1 said: "For two years obama had a democratic majority but still got nothing significant done except by executive orders." To some degee at least, I would agree. Yes, Obama had THE mandate of a lifetime and frankly, I think he rather blew it with his "art of compromise." And yes, I remember at least one executive order dated March 2012 where he has a goal of further entwining the U.S. domestic economy with the U.S. military; thus the economy being practically under the influence of it. Then there was his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, entwining U.S. local law enforcement with same, said military regarding at the least training. It just as soon should have been an outright executive order it it wasn't already. BUT, the Repubs are still, even a sliver, the bigger threat because of its 19th/12th century mentality. Still, I'm fed up with voting for "the lesser of two evils," especially given that both "parties" are ideologically the same, but differing in tactics.

+15 # janie1893 2012-09-02 13:11

Mr. Eastwood was a great movie maker and actor. Let us be thankful he is not running for a federal office.

-19 # RobertMStahl 2012-09-02 13:36

Believe me, I am not for Romney, but there are a large number of prisoners in Guantanamo now who have been release, but they are there, still. What the F? There is Assange, Bradley Manning, Bernard von NotHaus, Sherry Peel Jackson, and Larkin Rose to name a few, but you pardon Cheney. And, all the while, Obama, you set a precedent for the president to commit murder of children, Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, such a cute kid. Why is Indira Singh missing. She knew a few things about being in bed with these sickos. All wars are won by flanking (Gregory Bateson) and we are flanked by the demopublicans and the republocrats for their fanatic usurpation of abortion, if you get my drift?

+8 # bingers 2012-09-03 14:10

They are still there because the republicans refused rto allow them to be moved, not because Obama went back on a promise.

+1 # RobertMStahl 2012-09-04 15:47

What about Glenn Greenwald's take on Obama, or Wayne Madsen. You don't understand. I agree with your stance, but I am not confused about what is going down. As a protestant atheist, I quote the bible, "In the beginning all was mush and without form." What BO (and Romney) stand for is, "In the beginning was the word." Totalitarianism is such a manipulation of the corpus callosum. Evolution is substitution. Since winning is more important than living, Darwin has the day.

+35 # Texan 4 Peace 2012-09-02 13:50

It's hard to feel that fact-checking is all that effective, given that the majority of Republicans seem to be impervious to fact.

-19 # jimattrell 2012-09-02 14:19

Clint was great. An empty chair and talking to an empty suit. Most American's could relate....

-19 # Fungib3 2012-09-02 14:33

The most important things in life are free! In March President Obama singed an executive order to take all your resources away from you in what may or may not be a crisis. Read Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness on the Presidents own website. If you can't find it Google it. Clint Eastwood was not at his best and is for heaven sakes 80+ years old.

The important thing is that both parties and our government are taking away our rights as citizens. We all need to work together to rectify this.
If all of you arent smart enough to realize this then it's too late anyway!

We are all ___ked!

-2 # Glen 2012-09-04 06:56

Am not certain why you received minus points because you made a good case against the government. That NDRP is just one policy/law/regu lation in direct conflict with rights and freedoms. Folks should wake up to what's happening and forget Clint Eastwood.

+8 # Sensible1 2012-09-02 15:15

I choose to remember the actor Eastwood; the Rawhide cowboy, and going after the bad guys. This new political Eastwood is only a specter of the old, and leaves us sadly remembering what he used to be, as he fades into the sunset.

+21 # wfalco 2012-09-02 16:02

Old Clint thought he could just go out there and ad-lib a performance.
Clint's true talents (and he is good)is as a director. A director in recent years of rather thoughtful, meaningful movies.
With this ad-lib job he forgot to bring some thoughtfulness and meaning.
He did, however, bring some modern day Republican mean-spiritedness.
That's all they have really. Look at what these corporate criminals talk about:
Lower taxes (the rich only matter),less industrial regulation(its so much cheaper to pollute our air and water), financial de-regulation, and the big one..."we'll get government off your backs." And the poverty stricken whites in the traler parks of the South will hoot and holler about the anti-government stuff(But please keep your government hands of of my food stamps, Medicare, and/or Medicaid.)

Old Clint went out there just winging it. He relied on his celebrity to carry the day with his libertarian philosophy. The dummies in the audience didn't catch his anti-war stance-a part of Libertarianism I like.
But these same folks hear what they want to hear. It was fairly obviously (perhaps not to an 82 year old )a very condescending attitude towards our Black President. Meet Obama-the right wing's new Willie Horton.

+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-02 17:38

Media should be questioned esp Sawyer on her Pro American made etc....if Clint is anti War why was he at the Convention of Party who just to Israel they are going to blow up Iran?
I do believe questions should be asked...so what are you all waiting for>

-15 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:46

I'm against war but am still a conservative because I believe in having a strong defense system. After watching the documentary "2016 Obama's America" I'm very concerned about our defense. And I'm very angry that for the last two years of the Bush Presidency, Pelosi and Reid continued to vote to continue wasting our money on a needless war and then they blamed Bush? I see through that unlike weak-minded Liberals. So, that Clint is against war I'm not surprised. I don't know many, if any conservatives who promote war. It's just another liberal talking point.

+9 # bingers 2012-09-03 14:12

If you take Dinesh D'Souza ans anything other that a moronic ideologue you're pretty badly misinformed. The man is a buffoon.

+5 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-04 00:03

"Pelosi and Reid continued to vote to continue wasting our money on a needless war and then they blamed Bush?"

Jim, you just went over the cliff on this one! Your complete statement produces enough Swiss cheese to feed all the OWS people for a good long time.

Just who do you blame for declaring a war, a 'crusade,' against Iraq?
Who do you blame for declaring war on Afghanistan?
Just who do you blame for putting the cost of these two wars 'off the books,' as far as the Federal budget was concerned?

Where were you when all this was happening? Glued to your "right-leaning reality radio that has liberal content as well?"

+4 # bmiluski 2012-09-04 12:40

I beg your pardon. I remember when ANYONE who dared criticize GWBush about declaring war on Iraq was called a traitor and a terrorist. The neo-cons could barely contain themselves with the anticipation of war/money.

+15 # Paul Scott 2012-09-02 16:12

Eastwood actually showed the public the difference between a fantsy and real life; which is something that republicans and Eastwood have lost the inclination to learn which is which.

-7 # KittatinyHawk 2012-09-02 17:35

I still wonder if Clint did this to skrew with Republicans or hope people would read between his lines. He of course believes sheeple can read or think.

Of all the criticisms you all have including every column I have read. If Clint wants Wars stopped. If he believes the troops should be home, than why would he favor the Republican Party. Romney has promised to go to War against Iran in Israel. Of all the bs I read for or against...Not a one of you even see this for being very hypocritical.
If you would want to know why he made such remarks go to his web site question then go to Barbara w and Diane Sawyer and pose them some Real Qusetions esp with Sawyer being so Pro American Jobs...ask her why they aren't here, who is the Congress who supports their leaving.

You all sit here and rant but what do you really do. Have any of you ever done anything like help people get id? I know less than 1% walked with OWS. Nope you all think voting in NOvember will get you a quick fix...talk about the need for reality check.

Eastwood used to ride, he treated women like things. Wife had quite a few bruises, that was Locke. I ignored the rest of the bimbos who married someone like that. So I see where he is Repub.

But his commitment to his movies, his research makes me curious. If he is soooo against WAR than all his cronies should have been on lie detectors. If he got paid to be there..all time low

+8 # Billboy 2012-09-02 17:10

Clint Eastwood is a consummate actor and that is exactly what he was doing - haranguing an Obama who exists only in the minds of the hard right. This was a brilliant piece of theatre. The rubes in the audience were all fired up because a hero was assailing their nemesis. But the Obama that they 'see' is not who the President is. Thank you, Mr. Eastwood for revealing that Obama who doesn't exist. You made my day.

+18 # jazzman633 2012-09-02 17:32

Sigh. To think that as an idealistic young libertarian, I actually wrote a letter to Clint, urging him to run.

I never thought much of him as an actor (at least Stallone played TWO different characters in his movies), but he had image, political experience, and small-governmen t ideas.

As a professional speechwriter (and in a universe where I sold my soul to the devil and became a Republican speechwriter), I could have given Clint some lines that would have the crowd truly energized in a positive way, instead of what I saw, which was dogs barking at red meat.

How dare he publicly say that the President shoud f*** himself? What a schmuck. He has confused himself with the character he plays and gone off the deep end. Sad.

-13 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:40

Sad perhaps but a great line that we could all relate to....

+2 # ponca77 2012-09-02 18:11

You are correct in locating the blame for mass unemployment with Bush and in saying that net jobs are being added under Obama. But the BLS U6 measure of unemployment is 15%, and the July labor force was 155,013,000. That yields 23,251,950, which is approximate to Eastwood's claim.

-16 # RightForAReason 2012-09-03 06:32

Do some research into what Dodd and Frank did to the housing market, with No job, No Income loans to make housing "affordable". It churned up the prices, gave trillions of loans to people who could not afford them, setting up a house of cards, ready to fall. Bush and McCain tried to reign things in around 2003, but were blocked in the name of "affordable" housing.

-12 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:31

Finally... Facts instead of excuses. Right on...

+8 # bingers 2012-09-03 14:19

Quoting RightForAReason:

Do some research into what Dodd and Frank did to the housing market, with No job, No Income loans to make housing "affordable". It churned up the prices, gave trillions of loans to people who could not afford them, setting up a house of cards, ready to fall. Bush and McCain tried to reign things in around 2003, but were blocked in the name of "affordable" housing.

Republican talking points do not constitute facts. As a matter of fact (ironic) they are always false. Dodd Frank did no such thing, the repeal of Glass Steagall was the culprit. That plus crooked bankers caused the meltdown The repeal was a Republican measure that Clinton should have vetoed, so it's on him too. Dodd Frank reels in some of the excesses, nut not nearly enough thanks to Republican amendments.

+6 # PeterSee 2012-09-02 18:32

Great article. Very well said while refraining from the usual tones of smugness or condescension. Thank you.

+12 # natalierosen 2012-09-02 18:59

Agree with everything Prof. Cole said. Please send it to Mr. Eastwood.

+9 # Rick Levy 2012-09-02 19:05

Point #8. Bush received his MBA at Harvard, which doesn't speak well for that university.

+12 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:36

Quoting Rick Levy:

Point #8. Bush received his MBA at Harvard, which doesn't speak well for that university.

His economics professor said he was the worst student he ever had, knew nothing about economics and he was not allowed to flunk Dumbya because of donations to the school by his father and grandfather.

+2 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-04 00:34

And Hoover promised a "...a chicken in every pot," or was that Coolidge? Either way the promise was never fulfilled.
Then we have to recall the "Teapot Dome Scandal."

My point...why are you talking about 2003 and even before 2003? That was ten years ago.

For what possible 'reason' would you think that you can get anything 'right?'

When did Bush have the time to rein (not reign) things in? Perhaps around March of 2003. He didn't have anything much on his mind at the time; Cheney was helping him out with his little adventures.

+2 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-04 00:35

Finally... Facts instead of excuses. Right on...

-32 # RightForAReason 2012-09-02 19:38

1. President Obama had two years of a filibuster proof Senate and an overwhelming Congressional majority to do whatever he wanted to. Obviously he didn't want to close Gitmo.

2. Military court is by no means a "Kangaroo Court" and calling it such is an insult to everyone who ever served our country. Military court does, however take National Security issues into account and does not allow terrorists to ever set foot on US soil.

3. Counting only those Americans who are actively looking for work, the jobless rate is 8.3 percent, just like it was in January. But counting those who stopped looking for work within the last year, the rate is 9.8 percent. And counting all of the above, plus those who settled for part-time jobs, the rate is 14.9 percent. That works out to 23,730,000 Unemployed and Underemployed Americans

4. Telling your enemies you plans is almost never a good idea.

5. Joe Biden is missing from his Deleware village.

+21 # Pancho 2012-09-02 21:57

1. Obama had 60 votes for 13 months. Your math or your memory is bad, or you're simply lying. He made efforts to close Gitmo but appropriations were killed in congress.

2. Lt. William Calley was responsible for the murders of over 500 civilians. . Only his direct superior commander was indicted, but he was acquitted. No other person was charged. Calley was convicted of 22 murders. He was sentenced to life but placed on house arrest, pending appeal. His sentence was whittled down by successive Army review bodies and the Secretary of Defense until Nixon pardoned him after 3 1/2 years of house arrest. There is no more reason to trust a military court martial to come to a legitimate conclusion than there was for African-America ns to trust a cracker Mississippi judge in the '60s. Military "justice" has not allowed Guantanamo detainees trial in federal court precisely because the military does not agree that they have rights under either the Geneva Convention or U.S. case law. They are aware that the great body of detainees in Guantanamo would have been acquitted in a fair trial. The case of the Uzbeks was a prime example. There were 50 mutiny convictions in the racist Port Chicago case.

3. The quote was "23 million unemployed." You just proved that it was a lie.

4. That lame congress in 2001 declared war on Afghanistan with a single dissenting vote. We've been telling of our plans ever since, such as when we invaded and occupied Iraq.

-23 # RightForAReason 2012-09-03 06:21

1. Nobama promised closing Gitmo in the first year, less than 13 months.

2. Name ANY perfect legal system.

3. Hey unemployed, people who gave up or working for chump change, the last four years have been a jobs disaster. Is it Clint's fault Obama cooks the books to make the numbers look less abysmal? His numbers are more accurate.

4. Stupid to tell an enemy when you are leaving. They just wait you out.

5. Biden is a plagiarist and his major qualification for the job is no one wants to see him as President.

+11 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:45

Unemployment is still high because when the Pelosi house passed 44 jobs creation bills, every one was filibustered so that uninformed folks like you would falsely claim it's Obama's fault

And it was Bush who changed the unemployment report standards, not Obama

-19 # jimattrell 2012-09-03 10:38

Only problem with your excuse is that Govt desn't creat jobs .... But they sure can scare employers (you probably call them "millionaires and billionaires") from hiring and that's exactly what Pelosi (then supported by Obama) did with pork-filled jobs bills that were meaningless in terms of their description as "jobs bills". If we rid ourselves of the White House empty suit, let Conservatives fix things (that will take 7-8 years minimum) and then elect Hillary Clinton, I would be fine with that.

+9 # bingers 2012-09-03 14:21

It was the exact same policies that caused the problem that cons are now saying would fix the problems they created. If you believe that I have a bridge for sale.

+6 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-04 00:52

What, you say, "Govt desn't creat jobs."
Then why do the Republicans, a la Mitt & Paul, say that the only jobs created by Obama are "government" jobs. And the only way to save the country is to stop President Obama from creating more "government' jobs.
As far as 'letting the Conservatives fix things' why not let the fox guard the hen house, and after 7-8 years you might be able to offer a nice hearty dinner for Ms. Clinton, consisting of everything that's left, namely half a chicken wing, if you're extremely lucky.

+3 # David Starr 2012-09-04 10:52

Actually, employers have sure scared the hell out of workers comprising quite a long "tradition" of an unequal relationship between capital and labor. Your gov./job claim isn't correct. After about, what, 70 years, there has been plenty of job creation from government, not just in the U.S., but worldwide. And I'm sure that the positions were generally filled with qualified and effectively working people. Besides, workers have gotten what they wouldn't usually get in a job under a private employer, especially now: A wage that in many cases has been higher, compared to the service industry, among other industries; a better chance for union representation (Yes, I really think that unions have been a plus for workers' rights, despite the negatives.); and with that comes a better chance for workers to keep some sense of dignity, compared to working in the private corporate beaucracy with the perpetual threats relating to a short-sighted boom, and a potentially crisis-ladened economy. But it's the particular ideology that's the root cause.

+14 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-02 22:46

My response, point by point:
1. These days there is no such thing as a 'filibuster proof' anything. The filibuster is the weapon of the minority. As long as you have the floor you control the day, in theory. But even the threat of a filibuster can gum up the works.
The Bible hadn't even cooled off from the warmth of Obama's hand, when the Republicans met to plan their 'opposition' strategy. They borrowed from former GOP tactics use in the War Against Drugs..."Just say NO!"

2. "Military court does, however take National Security issues into account and does not allow terrorists to ever set foot on US soil."
If the Military court is so good, and they know that these people are terrorists, why have a trial at all? Just shot them and save time and money.
If the Military court "does not allow terrorists to EVER set foot on US soil," how do you explain 9/11? I guess they missed that one, right?
3. Your math is so fuzzy it tickles me. And if an American needs a job to survive and feed and house their family, and the job is full time at minimum wage, what would you do? And are you considered employed, underemployed, or just a common peon?

4. By 'plans' do you mean details about your 'policies' of change? By 'enemies' do you mean everyone who is not of your 'party?'
Are you advocating Civil War?

5. Vice President, Joe Biden is not missing. He's living in Blair House in Washington, DC.

0 # David Starr 2012-09-04 10:38

I have to reply then that Eastwood's rant, and the "Make my day" cliche, makes him more qualified to be on Letterman, given that it's "only entertainment." right?

+10 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-02 23:13

Mr. Cole,
For me, this is not one of your better pieces.
This list of "Ten" belongs on Dave Letterman, not here. Your skills are better served peeking behind the curtain and exposing the puppet masters.
Eastwood is a distraction from the utter failure of the Convention.
Romney had a opportunity to present his case, unencumbered by any outside force. He and his team had complete control of the message, through his speech, which was scripted to the max.
Clint Eastwood was NOT scripted. He spoke on the same night as the candidate.
Is there any salient point that will be remembered from Romney's acceptance speech?
Will Clint Eastwood's 'speech' be remembered before anything that candidate Mitt Romney said?
Who's going to play Eastwood on SNL from now until election day, and who will play Mitt Romney? Most important, how many skits will each get. These are the things that the fact starved American populace is crying out for.

Either the GOP blew it big time, or they have learned the lesson of every good snake oil salesman...when your main product is an empty shell, distract them with a good puppet show.

I guess stupid is as stupid does.

+5 # Glen 2012-09-03 03:40

I could not have said it better,BeaDeeBu nker. I agree all the way.

+8 # flippancy 2012-09-03 09:41

Ask anyone in the military whether military courts are kangaroo courts and they will disagree with you. I was once brought up on a statement of charges after I destroyed a missile power supply when I was hit by 20,000 volts DC and since i couldn't let go of it I had to throw it and destroy it. They let me off because it had cost more to train me than it did to buy the power supply. If the power supply had cost more than my training I would have been convicted, ordered to repay the government 10 years of pay and jailed for the act of saving my life. And that was a mild case compared to many others.

+2 # bmiluski 2012-09-04 12:52

You almost did it, you almost gave in to civility but then you had to add that last line. What is wrong with you republicans? Why such incivility. I've gotten e-mails from your kind that absolutely turn my stomach. The latest one was titled "Our Health Care" and it was President Obama's head superimposed on the body of a witch doctor. Nice......
Here is a "liberal" anti-republican e-mail. The difference cannot be more evident.
It's a parody on a Les Mis tune.
http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html

0 # Lolanne 2012-09-06 13:20

Quoting RightForAReason:

1. President Obama had two years of a filibuster proof Senate and an overwhelming Congressional majority to do whatever he wanted to. Obviously he didn't want to close Gitmo.
. . .

You obviously have only a passing acquaintance, if even that, with the facts. NO WAY did Pres Obama have a filibuster proof senate for 2 yrs. If you care about the truth, go to http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html
and read it for yourself.

-19 # RightForAReason 2012-09-03 06:13

6. Student loans just help subsidize a college system that feels no reason to control or lower costs.

7. "Solar-driven airplane". Yeah right. And try running your air conditioner on a hot night with solar power. See how many years those solar cells last, and how much pollution results from fabricating solar cells. Unreliable renewables require an equal amount of reliable standby power sources to make up the load, dramatically increasing generating capital equipment costs.

8. Just where are those sealed transcripts of his education?

9. Every major company does it, not just Romney. Government policies, some of the highest corporate taxes in the world and union work rules make outsourcing attractive. Romney played by the rules he was given.

10. "Make my day" is a promise he will do the right thing to bad people if they do bad things.

+3 # pernsey 2012-09-03 21:29

Basically all your talking points just make you look like a Fox News uninformed sheeple. Your not proving your points your showing us your lack of facts NotRightForARea son.

-3 # bmiluski 2012-09-04 12:58

Just where are those sealed transcripts of his education?
Probably no where near where Bush's AWOL/Army documents are.

+2 # fredboy 2012-09-03 13:02

Clint took a drubbing from the GOP for his pro-American Chrysler super bowl ad. So he was crawling back to their good graces, and in doing so erased his entire career and good name. Now his name is synonymous with the term "idiot". What was most tragic was realizing, when he went over the falls, the GOP was backstage frantically looking for a way to drop the curtain or otherwise shut his crazy ass up.

+1 # rp7943 2012-09-03 18:06

Sad end to an American icon's career.

+4 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-09-03 14:10

Where the hell are the Democratic leaders we would like to count on when the storm hits? Why are they not galvanizing the citizens toward an honorable life for those who want to succeed in a job, paid the price for succes, but do not want to run their own business?

+3 # ghostperson 2012-09-03 18:41

I was embarassed for him. He looked like an old rambling, lost for words fool. Now he is just another Mel Gibson figure. An embarassment to himself and others. I never had Eastwood pegged for a petty a**hole who would say the things that he did. He sounded more like Limbaugh, Beck and Rove.

+1 # bmiluski 2012-09-04 12:59

Maybe he was drunk? Let's hope so for his sake.

+2 # rertel 2012-09-04 11:43

I'm glad to see someone has taken Eastwood's comments seriously enough to analyze them. Although his act was improvisational and he occasionally stumbled for words, his performance should not be dismissed as the idle ramblings of an old man.

Eastwood actually offers a study of the minds of many GOP followers who have created a illusion of Obama and of America itself which exists purely within their collective imagination. Facts such as real unemployment numbers or responsiveness to Afghan demands for a withdrawal date are dismissed as "lame stream" and replaced by a more comfortable reality constructed from sound bites and fragments of Astroturf planted by well-funded right-wing SuperPacs and Foundations and watered daily by Rush and Fox.

We, too, hold an illusion in our minds, one of Eastwood we have created based on his films. We can hold on to that iconic representation; it is just as real as it ever was. But we need not feel sorry for the real man. He is exactly as we saw him last week--deluded, disrespectful, and down-right dangerous to democracy.

+1 # Diario7 2012-09-04 20:06

#11. Mr. Eastwood, why do you think intelligent voters would care diddly-squat what an actor, who has made a career out of creating make-believe (and quite good at it) would have to say about the future of the non-make-believ e U.S.A.? (Oh, pardon me, is it not you, but cCorporate America that has been employing actors for eons to get their message across who think that. My apologies. You were just a stooge with good acting skills and high value - great for science fiction, which is just U.S.A,, Inc. thinks viewers will believe is actually true.)

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.