All it does is remind people of the great Eastwood’s royal bomb at the RNC just two months ago. 
Posted on 10/24/2012 4:26:16 PM PDT by SmithL
Nobody in Hollywood has been clamoring to make “Ishtar 2.” Or re-imagine “Howard the Duck.” Why? Because they were BOMBS, that’s why.
So why in the name of “Gigli” would Mitt Romney’s campaign — er, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads superPAC – dust off Clint Eastwood to make a campaign commercial touting Mitt? All it does is remind people of the great Eastwood’s royal bomb at the RNC just two months ago. Yes, his ad-libbed “conversation” with a chair.
But in politics, attention spans are Tweet-short these days. So here’s Clint coughing up his full-throat-of-gravel Clintyness backing Mitt. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sfgate.com ...
SF is way overdue to get dumped into the bay during the next and imminent quake.
Clarification:
Ishtar was a 100 million dollar bomb of a movie made by left wing liberals.
IS TARRED is Obama after Eastwood is done with him.
It drove the liberals crazy, and was very effective.
Yeah, it sure drove Mitt Romney’s poll numbers into the ground ... oh, wait...
The difference is that Clint Eastwood’s movies have never lost money, because he strictly controls his budgets and schedules to make sure they don’t. Unlike liberal moviemakers and politicians.
Ironic that Clint was actually born in San Francisco, back when it was a functioning American city instead of a human freak game preserve.
All it does is remind people of the great Eastwood’s royal bomb at the RNC just two months ago.
Does the new Clintwood ad help Romney?
So why in the name of all that is holy would anybody vote to reelect O’Bumbler, possibly the biggest BOMB since Nero!
And I don't even like Eastwood. "Million Dollar Baby" was a bad movie, and worse propaganda for euthanasia. Not a cup-o-tea for this pro-lifer.
But Eastwood's convention performance was a triumph of American humor. I don't remember who first posted this, apropos Eastwood, but it's apt:
Mark Twain on the humorous story:"The humorous story depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling....[it] may be spun out to great length, and may wander around as much as it pleases, and arrive nowhere in particular ...The humorous story bubbles gently along, the others burst.
The humorous story is strictly a work of art--high and delicate art--and only an artist can tell it ...The art of telling a humorous story--understand, I mean by word of mouth, not print--was created in America, and has remained at home.
The humorous story is told gravely; the teller does his best to conceal the fact that he even dimly suspects that there is anything funny about it ...
Very often, of course, the rambling and disjointed humorous story finishes with a nub, point, snapper, or whatever you like to call it. Then the listener must be alert, for in many cases the teller will divert attention from that nub by dropping it in a carefully casual and indifferent way, with the pretence that he does not know it is a nub."
San Francisco elitists probably hardly know who Mark Twain was, much less understand him, or anything about traditional American humor (before it degenerated into all sarcasm, all the time).
silly me. I thought most of Clint’s movies were hits. Personally, I don’t like a lot of them, but comparing them to gigli is a bit too much.
Yes
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.