That was part of it. He was also imitating JIMMY STEWART and the whole 'skit' was based on this MOVIE. The empty chair next to Jimmy was where 'Harvey' was sitting.
_03.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=212&vpy=446&dur=1110&hovh=173&hovw=237&tx=131&ty=120&sig=100934122810750254550&ei=DI5DUOetDYi02AXq1oDQDA&page=1&tbnh=139&tbnw=219&start=0&ndsp=57&ved=1t:429,r:25,s:0,i:6)
Posted on 09/01/2012 6:50:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Clint Eastwood’s speech to the Republican National Convention has been panned as badly delivered and condemned as disrespectful. But it drew some of the most enthusiastic response of any speech at the three-day event.
Why is that? Are Republicans a bunch of disrespectful yahoos lacking in appreciation for rhetorical skills? No. Their response counters the critics and demonstrates that there is more than one way to deliver a message. My hunch is that a whole lot of people across the political spectrum were both humored and inspired by the iconic actor’s words.
Of course, the talking heads at MSNBC and CNN were in high dudgeon in their disapproval. As, no doubt, were most hard-core Obama supporters, at least after learning from the high priests of liberalism that they were supposed to be offended. After all, Eastwood said neither Mitt Romney nor he could do IT to themselves. Apparently the super-sensitive Rachel and Wolf have never heard a conversation among today’s youth, or even the youth of their own generation. Sometimes, particularly in today’s politics, you have to be a little outrageous to get anyone’s attention. Certainly Clint got their attention.
I suppose it is surprising that the campaign consultants and party poobahs allowed Eastwood to speak without an authorized script. But then, Eastwood is Eastwood. Who’s going to tell the make-my-day guy what to say? And thank goodness he was allowed to be himself, though it’s doubtful he would have spoken otherwise. No sanitized, synthesized, authorized script would have been anywhere near as effective.
What media critics heard as unprepared, bumbling and rambling prattle, millions of Americans heard as an expression of their frustration with nearly four years of economic lethargy and political divisiveness. What the naysayers heard as disrespect of the president, millions of Americans heard as a challenge to a leader often disrespectful of those who disagree with him. People do not soon forget when told that they cling to their guns and their religion, and that they have not built the businesses in which they have invested life and treasure.
A carefully vetted speech read from a teleprompter like most of the convention speeches would have been lost in the mists of endless and predictable words meant to inspire without offending, and without committing anyone to anything. Eastwood said what was on his mind. We need more of that in American politics — more honest debate and less pandering — more communication and less obfuscation.
Eastwood was not speaking to the Republican base or to independents, or to moderate Democrats. He was speaking to anyone willing to listen. Some who listened took offense. But my guess is that most who listened found themselves nodding in agreement and smiling at the jokes, even if off color.
Eastwood said what he thought and what a lot of other people are thinking. We own this country. Those we elect to public office work for us. If they don’t do their job, we fire them. Pretty basic stuff that most people, in most walks of life, understand. And, oh yes, there are even people in Hollywood who think it’s time to fire the guy at the top. A simple message, simply and effectively delivered.
*****
Jim Huffman is the dean emeritus of Lewis & Clark Law School, the co-founder of Northwest Free Press and a member of the Hoover Institution’s De Nault Task Force on Property Rights, Freedom and Prosperity.
That is what I thought too-—he was imitating Zero’s stammering-—when he doesn’t have his trusty old teleprompter. Clint’s speech wasn’t scripted!!!! There were many layers to Eastwood’s speech and much of it went WAY over the Leftist’s heads.
You expressed exactly what I thought...better than I could.
The TelePrompTer was for the empty chair, not Clint.
I am sort of disheartened that we don’t even seem to know our own culture.
Clint Eastwood’s speech was a masterful demonstration of the technique of communicating called Method Acting, pioneered in this country by Lee Strasberg. Does anyone recall the Brando-James Dean technique of delivering a speech. It is a naturalistic style that inspires intense concentration on the part of the audience, And it worked again this time didn’t it.
If you think it is easy, just try it. Eastwood’s expert use of the technique was refreshing and communicated better than the usual political speaking style which is quite theatrical and thus artificial.
Offense was taken because Obama supporters can ignore messages delivered in the usual stiff and artificial language style.
YOU are welcome....It’s NOT like I have EVER mis-read anything here! (/s)
no
That was part of it. He was also imitating JIMMY STEWART and the whole 'skit' was based on this MOVIE. The empty chair next to Jimmy was where 'Harvey' was sitting.
Absolutely. Brilliant! But it went over the ignorant Dems’ heads (except a very few of the heads of the Alinsky-ites). They know the power of ridicule and humor.
I know Harvey. Seen the movie and play, and love it.
My 80 year old mom who has been a republican for a lot longer than me also didn’t like it.
We both liked Marco Rubio! He was our favorite, then probably Paul Ryan.
I didn’t see Ann Romney’s speech, but my mom really liked it.
Of course, Not liking Eastwood’s speech won’t change our vote.
I don’t know if my almost 18 year old son saw any of the speeches. He started college last week. I’m viroid how the convention played out to that age group.
>> “People will be talking about this speech for months” <<
.
We could even call it the “Carmel Ice Creram Shop” of Residential politics.
>> “Of course, Not liking Eastwood’s speech won’t change our vote.” <<
.
Clint’s speech wasn’t given for your vote, and I think that for those that were targeted, it’s going to be very effective.
Some people are not big thinkers, but big watchers.
I think they should have stuck with Marco Rubio and other young articulate members of the republican party.
It’s wasn’t Eastwood’s looks, it was his whole delivery. I didn’t think he was very articulate compared to others.
Stop thinking.
The problem with Clint’s presentation is that he forced some people to use their brains. Old timers understood what background Clint was using and why.
Those who didn’t use their brains fall back to critiquing Clint’s looks and articulation, when in fact that was the whole point. For these people, Clint should have come on stage and said:
“For my next act, I will impersonate James Stewart and his invisible six foot rabbit, Harvey. Sit back, enjoy, I’m here to entertain you.”
I’m sorry you ignored Clint’s message and focused only on the visual, what is pleasing to your eyes.
Yeah, I dare your Marco Rubio do the same “act” as Clint did and make it believable. He’d flop.
May I suggest you educate yourself and watch the movie “Harvey”. Maybe then you’d get a clue.
I know Harvey! I love Harvey. I’ve seen the movie and the play. I even convinced my son to suggest it for the student directed play at his school.
My mom is old and smart and knows Harvey also.
It didn’t work for either of us.
Glad it worked for some, but I know it turned off others.
PING! is an alert, something that might be interesting to you, the pingee.
BUMP is “I agree with you, well said, ditto, what you said, etc.”
BTTT is “Bump To The Top, extremely well said, etc.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.