Clint Eastwood, 81-year-old actor and director, left a pretty marked impression in Tampa Bay on Thursday night. Initially overshadowed by Romney's speech, his was notable for other distinctive reasons. His performance, let's say, was rather interesting in concept but rather unsettling in practice. The idea was to pretend like Eastwood was addressing Obama, seated next to him; at points, it was difficult to tell if he was just acting well or whether other issues were going on.
As it stands, many are ambivalent about Eastwood's performance. Some were very impressed, some were worried, while others are just plain confused. Eastwood's speech incredibly entertaining, and his rhetoric is reminiscent of Academy Award-winning performances. Needless to say, the speech did point out a few key flaws with Obama's presidency. Clearly, Obama learned nothing from the Russians' war in Afghanistan when he started this whole mess in 2008. Under a Republican president, we never would have gotten involved.
Among all of his awards, Eastwood can still add one more hallmark to his resume; he is the subject of his very own meme.
What do you think? Did Eastwood's speech help or hinder the GOP's message?
3 comments:
I do agree that the rhetoric of the speech was quite incredible, but the message of the speech only seemed to continue the mudslinging. I know that the "We own America" comment was meant to be a statement of empowerment to the people, but it also seems slightly ironic that some of the supporters of this conference do literally own America. Another issue of the speech I want to quibble with is the idea that Obama should bring the troops home tomorrow instead of having a target date; without preparation to leave, things can be much worse. Overall, in my opinion, Eastwood's speech was detrimental to the GOP's message because it focused so much on bashing Obama.
I think that Eastwood's perfectly hilarious mudslinging achieved its purpose; although his points undermine the legitimacy of the GOP platform, his performance alone will likely boost the Romney/Ryan fanbase and ultimately gain Republican votes. While his criticism of Obama is often ironic and sometimes quite ignorant, the substance of his words seems almost secondary to his impeccably casual delivery. For instance, when Eastwood says, "I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there's twenty-three million unemployed people in this country," the audience erupts into clapping and cheering. Everyone knows that unemployment is not something to cheer about, but nonchalantly pinning the blame on the enemy is a lot easier (and more fun!) than offering a substantive solution. Eastwood is precisely what the GOP needed—someone who could rally the public around Romney/Ryan by beating down Obama without actually seeming like he was slinging mud. Afterall, he's just a hilarious 'ole actor with an empty chair... right?
I think the link leading to the CNN article about Eastwood upstaging Romney does bring up an interesting point. The general public would most likely be talking more about Eastwood's strange speech rather than the more political content from the RNC because of how different Eastwood's speech was. Such a speech would surely leave a lasting impression, and most people would probably only remember the fact that Clint Eastwood talked to a chair on TV. The actual content of the speech would most likely be forgotten because of the rambling delivery and the fact that it was the typical and predictable Obama bashing. Overall, the speech hindered the GOP's message and added to the list of things the Democrats will be able to make fun of.
Post a Comment