Feed on
Posts
Comments
«
»

Judge for Yourself: Clint Eastwood’s RNC Speech

Aug 31st, 2012 by

Other people have already told you what to think of it. Here it is in its entirety at 11:49 long:

.

.

Judge for yourself.

.

H. M. Stuart
Alexandria

Tags: ,

Posted in Nation, Politics

12 Responses to “Judge for Yourself: Clint Eastwood’s RNC Speech”

  1. Kim Margosein says:
    August 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    My daughter saw it. Afterwards, she called me and asked if my long term care insurance is current.

  2. Edward T. Haines says:
    September 1, 2012 at 6:19 am

    I watched it and enjoyed it very much. My take was that it was a deliberate parody done brilliantly by a seasoned and capable actor. Unlike the other speeches seen at conventions (not just this one), it made no wild promises, made no attempts to play with the truth. It simply attempted to assert that the other side is a failure and that it is time (in Clint’s mind) for a new president.

    Clearly, President Obama is vulnerable in this election. Sadly, knowing this to be the case, the Republican party could come up with no more viable candidates than Romney, Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, and the rest of that crew. At least the Libertarian party has come up with a viable candidate with ideas that make some sense (for the most part). Any bets on how much time Governor Johnson will get to present his proposed policies to the nation? It is still unlikely that he will be allowed in the “hallowed” debates.

  3. MI says:
    September 1, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Watched it yesterday, and again today. My first thought was, “Ummm . . . so what’s the big deal?” It was relatively short, which was nice. I could see how some might find it entertaining. No, it wasn’t in the same class as, say, FDR’s “Day of Infamy” or Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, but then, I don’t see much that is nowadays.

    Then again, maybe I just have really low expectations for contemporary American political oratory.

  4. JMK says:
    September 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    “At least the Libertarian party has come up with a viable candidate with ideas that make some sense….” (ETH)
    .
    .
    Well, IF you actually support the Libertarian viewpoint, then you’re already MUCH closer to the Republican party than to the Democrats.

    I’ve looked over the Libertarian Platform and I honestly don’t see where many of your stated views are in sync with much of it.

    I CAN easily see where many Republicans get most of their ideas from, but these are the ideas MOST REVILED by “liberals,” who tend to see government taking from one (high income) individual to provide for a few (lower income) individuals “HELP,” and NOT the “tyranny” that Libertarians see it as!

    I can’t see many points of agreement between you and the Libertarians:

    1.6 Self-Defense

    The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

    YES, I support the 2nd Amendment and the inalienable right to violent self defense, when necessary, as well.

    Most “Conservatives” DO…..most “liberals” DON’T! I’ve noted that “gun control ISN’T violence control,” nor should it be, as violence is often a guttural form of expression. I believe that the opportunities provided by free markets are the BEST antidote to violence there is.

    You too?
    .
    .
    2.1 Property and Contract

    Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

    Me too! AND I support that KNOWING that private property rights are the cornerstone of both prosperity and the primary cause of the wide disparities in wealth and wealth-creation in this country.
    .
    .
    2.4 Government Finance and Spending

    All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

    OK, since I’m on record supporting the Fair Tax (a National Retail Sales Tax), I could live with that. Many Republicans also claim to support a switch to a Consumption-based tax system, BUT virtually no “liberals” support such a tax system.
    .
    .
    2.5 Money and Financial Markets

    We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

    Absolutely! If you believe that government control has wrecked our banking system, then this makes perfect sense. If you don’t then neither THIS, nor ANY of the rest of the Libertarian Platform makes much sense.
    .
    .
    2.2 Environment

    We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

    Hmmmm, “Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems,” I guess I’m pretty much OK with that…..but YOU? SERIOUSLY?!
    .
    .
    2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

    We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

    Sounds ominously like support for that “Citizens United Decision” that affords Corporations (as “collections of PEOPLE”) all the rights and privileges of individuals under the law.

    As for, “Industries should be governed by free markets,” I’ve often said the SAME thing (“Businesses exist solely to MAKE MONEY, NOT to “do good” or “provide jobs,” both of those are ancillary benefits”), but again, I haven’t heard such views coming from yourself.
    .
    .
    2.7 Labor Markets

    We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

    OK, they oppose “card check” (streamlining unionization), they oppose mandatory retirement laws (who doesn’t…..EXCEPT “liberals”)…
    .
    .
    2.8 Education

    Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

    OK, there goes public education and all those public sector teacher’s unions!
    .
    .
    2.9 Health Care

    We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

    Look who else is promising to “eradicate Obamacare!

    I didn’t think you were down with such views.
    .
    .
    3.5 Rights and Discrimination

    Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

    OK, so they also oppose ANY & ALL forms of race-based preferences…..me too, BUT didn’t you support them awhile back?

    Have you changed your mind?

    SEE: http://www.lp.org/platform

  5. Edward T. Haines says:
    September 1, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Thanks for the summary of what the Libertarians platform proposes. As to your interpretation of my positions, as always, you seem to enjoy deciding what others believe and then arguing with those imaginary positions. Because this is of little interest to me for discussion purposes, I am not especially interested in pursuing it with you. Please feel free to engage yourself in a vigorous debate on what you believe are my positions.

  6. JMK says:
    September 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    STOP that Ed! The false claims of “others putting words in your mouth,” comes off as mocking Lance, who had some obvious issues. That sort of thing should be beneath you.

    Yes, while I disagreed with most of Lance’s positions, I won’t be party to making fun of him. . .that’s just not right.

    You seem to support the ACA. . .while virtually EVERY Libertarian opposes it.

    You’ve supported public education (“I believe in a public funded education system”)…government intervention over AGW (“I believe that climate change is an imminent threat. Whether anthropogenic or natural in cause really does not matter. We need to be taking steps preparing the nation for those aspects that can be predicted…”) which is opposed by Libertarians.

    You’d raise income taxes on ALL wage earners (“Increased taxes for ALL taxpayers”) – low wage earners or high, NONE are “wealthy,” since ” the definition of “wealthy” is NOT having to rely upon income for the bulk of one’s wealth, while Libertarians oppose the existence of the Income tax and support, instead a NRST.

    You’d turn Social Security and Medicare into veritable welfare programs, as THAT’S what “means testing” does. (“* Include some degree of needs testing for determining Social Security payments
    * Increase Medicare premium and include some degree of need determination”    ).

    That’s not only seems to be rooted in a bigotry against higher income earners, it runs counter to basic Libertarian principles.

    The ONLY one of the two major political Parties that even pays lip service to Libertarian ideals is the GOP. In that regard, they’re a lot like that fictional band Spinal Tap, with their saying, “We say love one another, we don’t actually mean it though, we just like saying it.” Same for most Republicans.

    The “liberals” (and that’s most Democrats save for the appx 42% of those “Blue Dogs” (mostly Southerners and white ethnic northern Catholics) tend to revile ALL Libertarian positions!

    That’s why Ron Paul, a dyed in the wool Libertarian is far more comfortable in the Republican Party then he’d ever be in the Democratic party.

    Look, it seems that ANYONE with any serious Libertarian leanings would appear to be far more inclined to be a Republican.

    There are some (maybe even MANY) of the Libertarian principles that I find appealing, but I tend to revile other people (I confess, most people disgust me and the rest I tend to regard as volatile as any venomous snake), so quite naturally, I my “liberal”/statist & Corporatist inclinations tend to overrun my basic Libertarian leanings.

    I don’t get that same vibe from you.

    You seem to connect with people and seem to like and trust your fellow Americans, so in that regard, it’s difficult for me to fathom exactly what sentiments you adhere to that overrun your own basic Libertarian leanings?

    Quite frankly, I don’t see all that much in the way of “Libertarianism” coming out of you, Ed. I have no issue with that. . .as I’m no ardent Libertarian either (like Spinal Tap, I just like mouthing the words)…it’s just that I can’t quite figure out what overrides your own Libertarian sentiments.

    I think that’s the reason I keep prodding you, in the hopes of finding that out.

    • Edward T. Haines says:
      September 2, 2012 at 8:55 am

      Astounding as it apparently must be for you, supporting some of what a party proposes does not obligate all of us to march in lock step behind all of that party’s proposals. I said that Governor Johnson appears to be somewhat reasonable not that I worship at his feet and adore every idea he has.

      I cannot and will not vote for Romney. This is based primarily on his support of use of torture. It is further based on his support of further use of military force as well as his espousal of government limitations on abortion.

      I find Obama to have been a disappointing president in several areas although none of them are as absolute as my opposition to Gov Romney.

      Feel free to decide what I believe as you have done in the past. I could care less what you see “coming out of me.” Be sure to let me know what I believe and think. That makes it easier to decide if I “need to change my mind.”

      • JMK says:
        September 3, 2012 at 11:01 am

        Neither political Party has ever condoned “torture.”

        The SAME canard was mounted when a Democratic President (FDR) fire bombed Dresden (killing more civilians in that bombing campaign than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined), and when another Democrat dropped Fat man and Little Boy on those two ill-fated Japanese cities.

        People who think they “avoided Tokyo because it was the Capitol,” don’t understand that Tokyo had also been fire bombed and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked because they were two of the very few Japanese cities that hadn’t already suffered much damage by continued bombing.

        Targeting civilians is an unfortunate but very legitimate part of war.

        Fast moving attack units “refusing to take prisoners” and killing wounded “enemies,” is also a part of war. The Japanese disemboweled Americans they caught, American troops flame throwered the dugouts the Japanese were fighting in and machine gunned the flaming occupants on the way out.

        Police in the U.S. from the NYPD to small town cops routinely use techniques like sleep deprivation, extreme heat and cold in cells, etc. to extract information from subjects. None of that is “torture.”

        An uncle of mine who was a cop (long dead now) was a bear of a man whose niche was extracting confessions from “the worst of the worst” – thugs who shot cops, raped Nuns, etc.

        He was a master of psychological duress.

        He’d come into the interrogation room snorting like a bull and pace around in front of the subject for a few minutes, glaring at him from time to time but asking no questions.

        Then he’d leave and come back with 2 thick telephone books and duct tape. He’d then hold the books on either side of the guy’s head and duct tape the books to the guy’s head.

        Usually at this point the guy would start asking what he wanted.

        He’d say nothing.

        Then he’d leave again and return a few minutes later with a baseball bat.

        NOW, at this point, some of the suspects would begin blurting out things, like the names of accomplices, where the weapons were disposed of, etc.

        BUT….just to make sure, he’d wail on those phone books concussing the guy without shedding any blood or bruising the subject at all. AGAIN, to this very day I DO NOT consider even THAT as “torture,” because no permanent physical damage was done, although I have come to believe that repeated concussive injuries CAN result in severe organic brain damage.

        BUT in virtually every case he ever interrogated someone they not only got confessions, but information leading to the recovery of weapons used, artifacts that were stolen and other tangible evidence.

        AGAIN, those nitwits who claim such techniques “render no actual evidence” are effectively talking out of their asses.

        Was it “right?”

        I don’t know, but I DO KNOW that it WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “right” for some cop killer or some Nun-raper to walk just because the police didn’t have the stomach to do what had to be done.

        • Edward T. Haines says:
          September 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm

          JMK says, “Neither political Party has ever condoned “torture.””

          He may be (sort of) correct in that neither party has included in their platforms advocacy for torture. However, under President George W Bush, torture became an accepted and approved methodology. Indeed, John Loo wrote an extensive paper describing how it is appropriate for use in our government. Clearly, some persons have engaged in torture of captives in the past, however, for the most part this was not approved policy.

          Governor Romney has indicated in multiple venues that he will reapprove use of so called enhanced interrogation of captives. He insists that waterboarding is not torture. Apparently several hundred years of classifying this as a method of torture does not bother him.

          You are certainly free to believe torture is useful and valuable. You are also free to believe that waterboarding is or is not torture. I believe torture to be unacceptable in a civilized society. If there is some remotely possible condition in which torture might be believed to be of value, then it should be approved for use by a high ranking person who will be fully accountable for that decision (the president office comes to mind).

      • JMK says:
        September 3, 2012 at 11:15 am

        Ed I clearly showed that YOUR views and those of Libertarians rarely if EVER) connect.

        So you translate a support for free speech (a fascist ran on a free speech platform in north western NJ a few years back!) and you begrudgingly accord the 2nd Amendment its due, to your having “some Libertarian leanings?”

        No, Ed that’s NOT “holding to SOME Libertarian principles.”

        There ARE key core Libertarian principles Ed, like “a smaller, more localized government is a better government,” and “government aide inevitably results in slavery to the state.”

        Like I said, while there are some (maybe even MANY) Libertarian principles that I find appealing, I tend to revile other people (I confess, most people disgust me and the rest I tend to regard as volatile as any venomous snake), so quite naturally, my “liberal”/Corporatist inclinations tend to overrun any of my basic Libertarian leanings.

        What I’m trying to uncover is that soft gooey center of chocolatey hatred for your fellow man in you, Ed.

        I can assure you, it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

        It’s OK to lie to one’s self with ridiculous assertions like, “I believe the government HAS to help the most needy and disaffected at the expense of those who’ve benefited the most from society,” but bottom-line that comes down to a hypocritical support for a dependency that is & always has been a prelude to state slavery.

        I understand why people lie to themselves and others about such things, but I also believe that honesty is vital in such areas.

        WHY sugar coat it?

        The reason we support such programs is that we believe that, “The poor and uneducated don’t deserve freedom, for to them, freedom is a curse and a burden they can’t bear.”

        I think you and I are very close to believing the same things. You just haven’t given up on telling yourself those self-sustaining lies yet…that’s all.

        • Edward T. Haines says:
          September 3, 2012 at 1:32 pm

          For those other than JMK, refer to my comment at #5, above. For JMK, thanks for once again telling me what I believe. Of course, the fact that you are wrong for the most part should not inhibit your continued efforts to do so.

  7. John E. says:
    September 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    About the video – it really is just an extended straw-man technique, right?

    Eastwood is simply pretending to have a dialog with President Obama, putting the questions to the empty chair and responding to the pretend replies.

    Well, it’s a technique, I guess…the sort of people who like that sort of thing will probably like it.