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

Sun Sep 2 14:00:17 UTC 2012

Eastwood put Rominy and GOP neocons who support him in quite a fix,
stating that he was against the wars in afghanistan and Iraq.  The applause
was quite interesting.  Some in the crowd "heard" what Eastwood was 
saying, and
offered no cheers.  But there is a still an antiwar crowd in the GOP and 
some of them
really do get it.

I seriously doubt that the Romulan has any intention of coming home from 
anywhere,
and I am pretty sure that his handlers would spike Romney if he started 
spouting such
sane anti-war talk.

Obviously the Eastwood monologue was a strong attack on Obama's performance,
but I feel it was also an attack on Romney.

To wit:

"we do not have to be metal masochists and vote for somebody that
we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys
or maybe not so nice guys..."

Which seems to describe the very unlikable and not-well-liked Romney.
Even the praise for Romney/Ryan sounds very much like Mark Anthony's
reference to "honourable men".

For me the most libertarian moment wasnt the mention of the libertarian 
ideology but
was the statement

"we -- we own this country
We -- we own it.
It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it.
Politicians are employees of ours. "

*
We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and 
overrun by bureaucrats,
the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.”  
-Ron Paul

On 9/2/2012 9:53 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> I stand by my conclusion wrt Eastwood's performance: mission planned, 
> mission accomplished.  Maybe listen again to what all Eastwood covered 
> and see if you don't agree that he presented the libertarian viewpoint 
> (which many of us share when it comes to foreign policy ... ) And yes, 
> I do love it that he said that Romney didn't like Obama's two year 
> plan and would be bringing the troops home the next morning (don't 
> you???).
>
> --- On *Sat, 9/1/12, Brussel, Morton K /<brussel at illinois.edu>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
>     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Eastwood channels Ron Paul; sticks it
>     to the Repubs and MSM!!
>     To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>     Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>     Date: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 6:37 PM
>
>     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
>>     <http://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."
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>     </mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>     http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120902/39f907a0/attachment.html>