[Peace-discuss] Eastwood channels Ron Paul; sticks it to the Repubs and MSM!!

[Carl G. Estabrook]

I think it's perfectly appropriate to gloat over East wood's remarks - especially once you've listened to them, and not just to reports about them - and I have no intention of voting for Obama.  --CGE


On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:37 PM, "Brussel, Morton K" <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:

> My impressions of Eastwood's speech, following Greenwald, are best summarized as: 
> 
> "bizarre and warped"
> 
> (and paraphrasing) …And he didn't even realize that he was criticizing the war policies of both parties…
> 
> I certainly wouldn't gloat over Eastwoods remarks, especially if I intended to vote for Obama.  
> 
> --mkb
> 
> On Sep 1, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 
>> AWARE Friends,
>>     The Repubs wanted their Hollywood celeb -- Obama had Clooney, etc -- so they scheduled famously conservative Clint Eastwood to "open" for Romney, assuming he'd be a strong Romney supporter -- how WRONG they were!! In case you missed it, here's
>> Clint Eastwood's Aug 30 speech: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsXBvbRQt20 
>>      Eastwood channels Ron Paul on several fronts, deliberately rambling on for 11-12 minutes (instead of the 5 allotted to him), thus preventing the mushy Romney video from airing in prime time -- clever design and execution, huh?? HA!!
>>      Eastwood mentions that:
>> 1) Obama hadn't kept his promise to close Guantanamo b/c too much $$ invested in it, but that at least Obama had prevented lawful hearings in NYC (irony x 2)
>> 2) the US knew the Russians hadn't succeeded in Afghanistan [ergo the US should NOT have attacked Afghanistan, duh] 
>> 3) that Romney objects to Obama's giving the 2 year timeline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, ROMNEY WILL WITHDRAW THEM TOMORROW MORNING!! (Yeah, right... like, never, and ditto for Iraq... plus, Romney's speech which followed Eastwood's added Iran and Russia to the US enemies to be attacked list)
>>      Eastwood's closing said that
>> 4) it's time for a change -- businessmen, not attys (irony?), and that it's citizens NOT politicians who own the US... and that Romney will go if he fails.
>>      The Repubs/both Romneys made light of it, and the MSM focused on the apparent rambling and missed/ignored the msg entirely (even David Corn of Mother Jones), tho' I'm still checking and hoping. 
>>      Glenn Greenwald came close on DN! but also missed that this was NOT rambling, but Eastwood's perfect plan and execution to a)  get his Libertarian points across, while 2) preventing Romney's mushy video from airing in prime time!!     GLENN GREENWALD: "Obviously, that speech was so completely bizarre in all sorts of ways, which is one of the reasons why I really loved it. It’s—you know, these conventions are so incredibly suffocatingly scripted and manufactured and contrived, that to have this sort of moment of spontaneity, as bizarre and warped as it was, was kind of refreshing. But it was—the weirdest part of the speech was not only when he criticized Obama for not pulling the troops out tomorrow, as though Romney would, when Romney has criticized him from the other direction, saying that he’s made a mistake by committing to withdraw—the stranger part was he actually seemed to criticize the commencement of the war in Afghanistan itself, by saying, "Why didn’t we look at what happened to the Soviet Union and their experience in occupying Afghanistan for 10 years?" meaning we should have never commenced that war in the first place. And strangely, the Republicans, all of whom, with the exception of the Ron Paul delegates, obviously believe that war is a good war and that we should stay, somehow cheered. So, it just showed how off script it was that he was inadvertently criticizing the war policies of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, I think without his even realizing that he was doing so."