So first Eastwood does the chair bit and then he compounds the problem by calling our President, and I quote, the “biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public.”

I was kind of hoping Clint Eastwood would just not say anything, but instead retreat back under the 48 hour news cycle that swallows up any scandal, like the tide washing away the trash and scum on the shoreline. But he didn’t. Perhaps Karl Rove or some higher up in the GOP wanted him to explain what happened the other night to ensure people didn’t walk away thinking Eastwood was senile, or perhaps hoping to change the narrative around the chair incident. To say it backfired was an understatement.

To understand how Hollywood works is to understand why someone like Clint Eastwood would have the stones to go up there unprepared, unrehearsed and off the cuff; no one in Hollywood would ever hold him accountable for saying whatever the hell he felt like.But at a political convention, the stakes are higher than film profits or Oscars prospects. When it might cost a candidate the US Presidency itself, you’d think he would have at least prepared a script.

“They vet most of the people, but I told them, ‘You can’t do that with me, because I don’t know what I’m going to say,’” Mr. Eastwood told The Pine Cone.

The Clint giveth and the Clint taketh away. The good news is, Clint Eastwood just agreed to star in your movie. The bad news is he’s about to start rambling and talking to a chair.

For his directorial debut — Robert Lorenz, producer and first assistant director on several previous Eastwood films — got the extraordinary gift of having Eastwood star in his movie. Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake round out the cast and it appears to be headed right up Oscar’s ally (of course, pending reviews). Eastwood plays an aging baseball coach and the trailer shows him tearing up. His performance has Oscar written all over it. Or at least it used to.

But Eastwood has now all but upstaged that film, its potential to be a hit or to earn any awards by arrogantly appearing at the RNC without so much as a script. Probably Clint Eastwood has never been in a situation to receive any sort of public scorn; even when his films bomb he somehow lands on his feet. He’s a beloved American icon and someone who has always stood up for personal liberty and until now hasn’t really sided with any politician so much as he’s always sent the message for people to think for themselves.


This time, Eastwood is clearly siding with a party that promises to limit our freedoms, significantly reduce the support for the arts, and are mostly buying an election outright. We might have imagined that Eastwood was a guy who would oppose the SuperPacs. But instead he has become one. He’s aligned with a party that values money above all else. He never struck me as that kind of person. He supports gay marriage and yet has aligned himself with a party that does not. He directs films that star minorities, films that don’t only embrace the white-forward manifesto, as the Republican party does. Mostly, Eastwood’s appearance in Tampa was as baffling as his wife’s bizarre reality show, Mrs. Eastwood and Company. That was bad enough PR on its own.

Now Eastwood has spoken to a local paper in Carmel. He said he wanted to say three things when he got up to the podium.

1) There were more Republicans in Hollywood than people thought.

2) Why didn’t Obama keep the promises he made to the American people?

“There was a stool there, and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down,” Mr. Eastwood said. “When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I’ll just put the stool out there, and I’ll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn’t keep all of the promises he made to everybody.”

3) If a leader is failing you should vote them out of office.

I think he managed, through the fog, to make his first and third point clearly — and some of what he hinted at Buzzfeed spotlighted months ago. But I suspect most of the actual conservatives would prefer to keep it quiet. Why? Because Hollywood, and especially the Academy, are made up primarily of bleeding heart liberals. They don’t kowtow to the rich people’s party and they stand up for the themes they put in many of their films. So it’s a ballsy move to appear at the RNC on the eve of your film coming out. Warner Bros. had enough on its plate having to deal with the Aurora massacre and now this?

As for the so-called broken promises of the Obama administration I can’t see where he broke any of them. He hasn’t lied to the American people like George Bush or Richard Nixon did. Last time I checked the Presidency isn’t a dictatorship. Anyone paying attention knows that the GOP blocked Obama each and every time he tried to enact legislation. They are scum for doing that. Yeah, you heard me. Scum. And to then turn around and blame Obama taking no responsibility for their share in the gridlock? Scum.

Ultimately, Eastwood’s overall message was lost because he chose instead to belittle our President by pretending he dragged him there and made him sit in a chair. The equivalent of saying “shut up and sit down.” He called him Mr. and not President Obama. And he made a cutting gesture across his throat. That was dangerously inflammatory, and even beyond what he likely intended since it could be seen as an implied threat against the President of the United States, which is a Federal crime. We know Eastwood is not a racist. We know he’s not a fascist and yet that is precisely how his speech came off. On a night when crucial impressions depended on well-chosen words, a muddled, unclear message tumbled out in reckless terms a seasoned pro should never have risked.

How the Oscar race goes this year may very well depend on how the election goes. But you can bet if the GOP manages to insert their lame-duck candidate into office, maybe the worst candidate for President I’ve ever seen — and that includes Michael Dukakis, GHW Bush, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale and Howard Dean — there are going to be a lot of angry liberals who won’t appreciate Clint’s piling on.

On the other hand, if Eastwood was genuinely trying to be a prominent activist for the first time in his whole career? He pulled that one off. He showed that he’s unafraid to passionately express his own beliefs. I suppose in the end who can fault him for that?

To that end, I am still going to see Trouble with the Curve with an open mind. He’s still the director who made Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers the same year. He’s the same guy who made Mystic River. And his director doesn’t deserve to be dragged down by Eastwood’s politics. But one has to wonder at this point how anyone can come back from that.

  • Clint Eastwood in Trouble with the Curve

    An ailing baseball scout in his twilight years takes his daughter along for one last recru…
Load More Related Articles
Load More By Sasha Stone
Load More In News
  • Amanda

    I was never going to see this because of Clint anyways, it was always for Amy Adams. I mean I saw Leap Year in the theaters opening weekend, so Clint cranky ass isnt going to stop me from seeing the movie and supporting an actress I love.

  • Kevin Klawitter

    I remember that even while criticizing his speech on twitter and his blog, Roger Ebert made a point to continue to voice his admiration of the man, and to mention that he has seen “Trouble With the Curve” and considers it ‘wonderful’.

  • Yeah, it’s his art, not his politics. And Clint Eastwood has always managed to keep those two separate, even, occasionally, seeming to contradict his conservative personal beliefs via the apparent messages of his films, particularly lately (Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling do not come across as the sort of films a Republican might make).

    I don’t think his speech came off as fascist, though. It came off as the muddled ramblings of an old and confused man. I don’t think Clint is confused, I think he misjudged the situation and dug himself into a hole, without a script, the nerves intensifying minute by minute. He committed to something, and the gravity of the circumstances prevented him from backing off graciously, or at least I imagine he felt that way. The in-house audience was lapping it up anyway – whom was he to know just how big a mistake he was making?

    I wish he’d stayed right out of it. He’s refused the opportunity to run for office a number of times, I believe. He didn’t need this. But I’d bet a large proportion of his target audience is comprised solely of like-minded conservatives and those who don’t care either way.

  • keifer

    Here’s a few movies which Clint Eastwood may make sequels for soon:

    Magnum Misfired
    Play Party Politics For Me
    Billion Dollar Baby
    Unforgiven, Unforgiven, Unforgiven
    Dirty Politics Harry
    Paint Your War Party
    Where Eagles Dare Not
    Escape From Tampa
    White Hunter Black Heart Elephant Rider

    and, of course

    In the Line of Fire – Part Deux

  • “Belittle our president.” And that’s what I have a hard time forgiving. It was just gross. He may not have intended it that way, but that’s certainly how it came across (to me): our president is a fouled-mouth little kid who needs a good talking to. Disgusting.

    “Howard Dean” one of the worst? I respectfully beg to disagree. Principled man ahead of the curve in SO many ways.

    “But one has to wonder at this point how anyone can come back from that.” Indeed, at this point, I have to figure that he will not top himself with Gran Torino or come even close.

  • TB

    Like I said before… Big fan of the man, always will be. He is a legend in his own right. But what I saw at that convention I will never forget. Mainly because I felt so sad for him. All I could think was… “Clint, what are you doing man?, please stop”

    I will still see anything he is involved with, especially if he is directing.

    Still believe Obama will win comfortably. I can’t imagine Americans choosing a rich, snob, stiff candidate over Obama. Oh wait, they already did 12 years ago… twice, so who knows.

  • “But one has to wonder at this point how anyone can come back from that.”

    I actually took that sentence to mean the blow the director Robert Lorenz has suffered as collateral damage. Poor guy, as if there’s not already enough for him to worry about without being saddled with all this baggage.

    The paragraph centers about Lorenz, I thought. But if that’s not what Sasha meant or if the meaning isn’t clear, we can easily fix a pronoun to point in the right direction.

  • Jerm

    I loved his speech. Obama will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents, I’m sure. Are we better off than where we were 4 years ago? Nope, worse. I think Clint gave a great off the cuff speech, and personally his statement “when the president has failed to do his job, it is time to let him go” (then the cut the throat gesture) was the one of the best parts of his speech. Do you keep an employee if they do something that costs your company a lot of money? No. I hope that his chances at an Oscar this year isn’t affect by his speech because of liberal Hollywood, because he deserves an acting Oscar. But at least he gave a great and accurate speech.

    I would also like to add I hate politics, both parties. Both sides lie. It is just dirty. It divides people and our country. No one on here would stick up for Clint, I’m sure, but I will step out every time if I have to; because when it comes to this site and politics it’s all one sided.

    Perfect world politics and films and Oscars would not be affected by each other and wouldn’t need to be discussed in this manner. I wish it were the case.

  • Dan

    Oh come on. At the end of the day, Eastwood was voicing his opinion-A Constitutional right. You can disagree with any administration that has inhabited the White House, and half the country will agree with you.

    Saying that it is disgusting to make comments critical of any president flys in the face of the First Amendment. Whilst, many on this site may have highly critical feelings about the last three Republican Administrations, no one labeled critical statements made about them as ‘disgusting.’

    It is one’s Constitutional right to voice one’s opinion. I salute Mr. Eastwood in that he has never let his personal beliefs interfere with the individual’s he has choosen to work with: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman,etc. I see it as inspiring that he works with individuals of a differing ideology instead of washing his hands of them. If everyone in this country took notice of this, the country would not be so f–king polarized, and we could actually deal with the problems that matter.

    So, go label Mr. Eastwood as a person you will not watch, because of his politics. In doing so, you will just make the country more and more polarized.

  • (then the cut the throat gesture) was the one of the best parts of his speech. Do you keep an employee if they do something that costs your company a lot of money?

    Of course, you must cut that employee’s throat. Execute him. The international gesture for the soon-to-be-unemployed is a sharp knife to the larynx. Let the bastard bleed out.

    Sometimes fake cowboys slip and momentarily believe they’re living in their own cinema myths.

    What woulda been even cooler is if Eastwood had pointed a fist-and-two-finger pistol at the chair and shot invisible Obama between the eyes.

  • zazou

    So Clint Eastwood ,”belittled,” President Obama by exercising his right to free speech?Well as President Harry Truman once said,”if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” Harry Truman was a Democrat,folks.

  • Brett

    My guess is that Clint’s performance at the RNC destroyed any Oscar potential for Trouble with the Curve. Yes, there are “some” conservatives in Hollywood, but it’s a liberal place overall. And I bet this film comes up with zero nominations as a result.

  • . Do you keep an employee if they do something that costs your company a lot of money?

    The word for people who think Obama has cost America a lot of money is IDIOT.
    Point to the spot on Molest-My-Deficit Chart where bad-touch Obama took all your moneys.

    See the yellow slab of spending THAT GOES DOWN. That’s normal essential government spending. That’s the foundation of basic services. It’s LESS now under Obama than Bush spent.

    See the slender pale blue slice? That’s the part that saved the global economy from another Great Depression and is now beginning to pay back dividends.

    See the other enormous top-heavy chunks that have ballooned like crazy because that’s what Wars and Tax Breaks for Millionaires do? They blow up in your face. That’s the gift to America that Bush left, like an clogged toilet where Bush kept shitting and shitting and never flushed (and never even included in his own budgets.)

    The TARP bailout in dark blue, that’s another present from the final last desperate gasps of the Bush administration. Remember when McCain had to rush back to DC and skip a debate with Obama? That’s when TARP terms were legislated.

  • Dan

    Clint Eastwood is 82. He is not nor has he ever cared what people think of him. As such, he’s speaking his mind freely, recognizing at his age he can speak his mind without any concern.

    Oscars? People have said he is Oscar hungry. I don’t think he ever has been. He is just attracted to interesting material that Oscar voters sometimes go crazy about. Does he want Best Actor? He already has four-I’d imagine he really doesn’t care one way or another. At the end of the day he still is making the movies he wants to make. Just ask Michael Cimino if he’d trade in his statues for that ability. Clint’s going to be just fine.

  • Jesse Crall

    Letting Eastwood’s political conservatism and daffy speech affect my view of his films would suggest that I have high expectations for human behavior and thought.

    I saw The Outlaw Josey Wales for the 1st time this week. It rules. So does almost every other Eastwood performance. Good enough.

  • Jerm

    So 16 trillion in debt and thats not Obama’s fault?

  • Jerm

    He promised to cut the deficit in half but has only increased it by double….not his problem right? I recall liberals blaming Bush for costing a lot of money. So if Obama doubled that, then who do you blame? You can’t go back to Bush this time…. His fault. He needs to go.

  • Gregory Warren

    Your liberal bias has clearly started to not only affect your pieces, but now it is to the point where I can hardly go to your site. I do find most of your work very inquisitive and delightful with some good facts, but lately it has been off. Just stick to the facts, don’t really care for your opinions on politics. Same with that assistant you have, Ryan Adams, it is like no one can state their opinion without being attacked.
    Eastwood is a LEGEND, frankly at this point in his career nothing can derail his power. If he is great in his new role with Lorenz guarantee a nomination, possibly a win. He was terribly snubbed for “Gran Torino”.
    Anyhow, “The Master” is and will be the best of the year. Already saw it and the shear brillance of PTA and his ambition was a site to see. May not be the most fluid script, but are any of his? Probably won’t win Best Picture because most of the Academy won’t understand it, but it should.

  • TB

    Would have never imagine more than a few die hard conservatives visited this site. I am amazed at how republicans can say shit after shit of Obama after they voted for bush? Your balls must be huge because I am betting your brain isn’t. Americans may be the most powerful country in the world but that doesn’t mean that every american is smart. I actually never met a bright republican but I haven’t met many either. And I don’t have to, after watching fox news for a while we get the picture on republicans. Like my friend calls them… rich assholes with no common sense.

    At least its nice to see almost everybody enjoys the movies. I guess most republicans who visit this site wanted avatar to win. Goes to show you.

  • but now it is to the point where I can hardly go to your site. I do find most of your work very inquisitive and delightful with some good facts, but lately it has been off.

    Gregory, whatever it takes to motivate you out of lurker status to speak up.

    if you’re a loyal longtime reader this is the first time in 4 years I’ve ever seen you be inspired to type ‘BOO’ in a comment.

    please join the party sometime when you’re not mad about something. I mean it.

  • d2

    Honestly, who freaking cares? You have to stop taking celebrity politics seriously. Yah, I appreciate them when they do charity/aid work like Pitt and Jolie and Clooney and Penn, but when it comes to politics – they’re just people.

    If Clint’s speech is enough to derail Romney’s campaign, then why wouldn’t Hollywood want to thank him? Also, it’s not as if winning an Oscar is the most important thing to accomplish in life (like raising a family…) – especially when you have 5 (4 competitive + 1 Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award)…

  • Mohammed

    Mr Eastwood has as much right to voice his opinion as people have a right to question that opinion and his political stands. The Republican party is a party that’s anti-everyone-but-the-rich. It’s stated policies is adverse to the poor, the middle class, the homosexuals, minorities and women. Looking from outside in it’s amazing that this party can still have a viable chance to take the halls of power.

    When a party has a stated policy that attack the rights of women, that rather wants to cut the budget for the poor instead of the bloated military budged, that wants to redefine rape, kick the elderly out of their guaranteed access to medicare, then anybody supporting that party can expect to be questioned not only on policy matters, but more importantly on morals and ethics.

    The Democratic Party and it’s members are no saints. But anybody who’s honest about the facts can see that their short-comings are far more tolerable than the GOP and it’s members.

    One can be for smaller government and lower taxes. But a civilized society can’t have a party that advocates social darwinisme in the name of liberty.

  • Jerm, sorry to be blunt. But can you read a fucking CHART?

    Obama WOULD ALREADY HAVE CUT THE DEFICIT in half if the ridiculously extravagant BUSH TAX CUTS had been allowed to expire as they were intended to. They were legislated to expire at the end of 2010.

    They were sold to us as TEMPORARY. Now they’re a cancer that we’re not allowed to touch.

    Do you not recall how Boehner and Cantor and Paul Ryan held the debt ceiling hostage and refused to lift a finger unless every one of the TRILLIONS of dollars you see on the ORANGE slab of this chart be allowed to CONTINUE to flood back into the greedy hands of millionaires and billionaires.

    Look at the chart. Please. Look at it. Get rid of that HUGE slab of disastrous tax cuts and you instantly chop the deficit in half.

    But how can Obama do that if the Republicans have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist and fear for their political survival if they give up one dime of tax breaks to the super-rich?

    Where else in holy fuck do you think half that deficit could be cut from? The yellow part? good god, that yellow part is 100% from standard services our government has provided for decades.

    christ. people who can’t read a simple 5-color chart just disgust me with their ignorant bullheaded blindness.

    Jerm. LOOK AT THIS CHART. That’s the whole enchilada. That’s the whole budget deficit. There is NOTHING ELSE.

    Tell me where to cut half, dude. Are you blind? Are you thick-headed?

  • Amir

    I saw this film yesterday. I am a huge Eastwood fan, and would love to see him win Best Actor one day, but I would be shocked to see this film nominated for anything at the Oscars. Eastwood will not be nominated for Best Actor for this performance. He’s given much better performances in much better films. The film is not bad. It’s just not excellent, either. It’s a simple story, plainly told, with very few surprises. It lacks the power and emotional resonance of both “Gran Torino” and “Million Dollar Baby.” It’s not going to be a contender. I don’t really see why Eastwood came out of acting retirement for this.

  • He supports gay marriage and yet has aligned himself with a party that does not.

    President Obama did not support gay marriage when he ran in 2008. That’s one of the reason I didn’t vote for him.

    TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE looks really good. I intend to see it. I thought Clint Eastwood’s skit at the RNC was basically a roast. Just like they do now with the Correspondent’s Dinner. He cast himself as the host in this skit and he had Invisible President Obama to his left. I thought it didn’t work. I didn’t throw the fit that everyone else did. I never do. I make it a point to try not to get offended. It’s a waste of time. Clint Eastwood, Mitt Romney, and President Obama have all survived it. A week later no one cares.

  • Sasha Stone

    There’s no way Obama goes down as one of the worst Presidents. I’ll bet you here and now he goes down as one of the best.

  • rufussondheim

    The trouble with Republicans is that they can’t hold two thoughts in their head at the same time. Jerm is the perfect example.

    If you think the US is better than four years ago (this month) than you truly are not an intelligent person, or you are being willfully ignorant just to prove a point.

    The facts are simple. The American economy was in a freefall. We were in a recession that was more than a year old and the GDP was in the middle of contracting 9%. That’s an utterly huge historically signifigant amount.

    I could go on and on, but what’s the point. When someone chooses to be and remain ignorant, there’s not much we can do to save them.

  • Jerm.

    oh lookie. Faces! It’s a picture chart.

    See the faces? Can you name the faces?

    Can you say wasteful? Can you point to the 3 wasteful presidents?

    Can you say thrifty? Can you point to the 2 thrifty presidents?

    Good. You got it. Now what do the two thrifty presidents have in common? Can you guess? Besides being the only two who don’t make me puke.

  • brandz

    Eastwood made a fool of himself, plain and simple. He came off as a senile old man. His films are usually decent (Unforgiven comes to mind as a truly great film). I am now less likely to see his movies as I vote with my pocketbook (or in this case, pocket). Clint really let me down.

  • Yeah, no matter whether or not you agree with his policies or his performance, Obama will be remembered as one of the best Presidents. In the current global climate, it’s hard to see things in a positive light, even for Democrats, but in 10 or 20 years’ time, his legacy will be little but positive.

    That’s something to remember. The way the world is today, fucking Jesus could float down from heaven and take over and people would find reason to criticise him. So Obama hasn’t lived up to people’s expectations; you think Romney will be any better? You think he’ll keep all his promises? You think he’ll save America? The fuck he will. The best a President can do these days is disappoint, the worst they can do is die on their arse. Obama’s disappointed some, but he’s not on his arse yet.

    Had McCain been elected, everybody would be at least equally dissatisfied.

  • rufussondheim

    If he had done nothing else but saved the US Auto Industry, he’d be considered a great president. It seemed like a difficult decision at the time even though it wasn’t, at least if you listened to nearly every major economist at the time.

    What was smart about the decision, though, was how well it was handled, the restructuring is what actually saved the auto industry, the bailout just gave the industry time to adapt to the new reality.

    I mean, really, how could anyone advocate letting the auto industry fall apart? You’d have to be an idiot.

  • MAC4Ever

    Since this site has obviously become political and obviously biased. Can you please rename it to Awards Daily for Left WING LIBERALS ONLY! I come to this site because I like to get informed about films and awards and such. Not to be told how to vote!

  • There’s no way Obama goes down as one of the worst Presidents. I’ll bet you here and now he goes down as one of the best.

    I mean we could ask Michelle, but that’s pretty private.

    If you think the US is better than four years ago (this month) than you truly are not an intelligent person, or you are being willfully ignorant just to prove a point.

    See here’s the rub. What I think a lot of people don’t get about people who consider themselves Democrats and Republicans is that they view everything completely differently. The Republicans are asking people “are YOU better off than you were four years ago?” The Democrats come with their charts and say “Look at how much better WE are doing. Duh!”

    It’s just not the same conversation. The Republicans are speaking to individuals, asking them to look at their own lives and evaluate. The Democrats are asking people to look at the greater good, as usual. Well, do people generally vote for their own interests or for the greater good? There are a lot of people who had jobs four years ago who don’t. Others who had a house then and no longer do. So they might look at their own lives and tell you where to put your stats and charts. They are much worse off than they were four years ago. That is who the Republicans are speaking to, those “folks” the President likes to refer to but doesn’t seem to “get”. If they keep reading in the paper that the economy’s getting better but their able bodied son still can’t find a job, what are they going to believe? The newspaper or their own experience? If the Republicans tap into that don’t be surprised if they get somewhere because of it. The Democrats are talking about dreams and hope and abstract ideas of how life should be and let’s all hang in there, when people in the real word are falling down. People aren’t stupid if they don’t feel like believing in what seems to be a fairy tale. The hope that things are going to get better. They feel like they gave that dream four years and that’s more than enough.

    I don’t think either side really gets what’s going on with “folks” but unfortunately the Democrats, the ones in power, get it the least.


    I’ve always admired Clint Eastwood as an actor and a director. As Sasha mentioned in her article, he is an american icon and he has portrayed heros encapsulating morals that Americans hold dear. However, his performance at the RNC was meant to be entertaining, some people liked it, some did not. Don’t take it so seriously.

  • Mohammed

    #Antoinette : There is no denying that many people are hurting. No one can. The question is why should the party that broke the economy, created a vast deficit , illegal and unpaid for war, medicare-prescription law (also unpaid for) , should be permitted to take power again ? The even more problematic thing is that the GOP want to cut deep in the funding for the small checks that those who are long term unemployd get, which would lead to even more suffering. If people vote based on self interest, then surely they will vote for someone who doesn’t want to cut the social services that they or their parents or children benefit from. There was a very informative New York Times article about this issue a while back where the journalist travelled to different parts of the country where people who are on government programs voted for people who vowed to cut them. it doesn’t make sense!

  • The Republicans are asking people “are YOU better off than you were four years ago? …The Republicans are speaking to individuals, asking them to look at their own lives and evaluate… Well, do people generally vote for their own interests or for the greater good?

    The wealth of the Koch brothers has soared $16 billion (47%) under Obama. They went from #37 to #12 on Forbes’ Gilded List of the Filthy Rich.

    (Does anybody know if the Koch brothers are Republicans or what?)

    The Dow opened at 8,280 on the morning Obama took the oath of office. Yesterday the Dow topped 13,300. (For every $2 million you had in stock when Obama took office, Now you have $3 million. Lucky you.)

    You’re partially right, Antoinette, but obviously there are tons of people who got a whole lot richer over the past 4 years. To answer honestly, they would have to say that things are better for them, right?

    Here’s the catch. Now that they have all these extra millions, they don’t want to pay fair taxes on it.

    A lot of Republicans are doing great. Obama saved their investment bacon. Now they want to keep it all. Time to hoard their fortunes overseas and let another cycle of GOP pillaging begin.

  • steve50

    “The Republicans are asking people ‘are YOU better off than you were four years ago?’ The Democrats come with their charts and say ‘Look at how much better WE are doing’..”

    While I don’t agree with your conclusion, antoinette, I think you hit the bullseye with this differentiation. That’s all you need to know about the difference between the right and the left – anywhere in the world.

    Then people vote for what they believe is the greater good, framed by their experience, education, and ultimately, their own interests. Tricking the hurt or willfully misinformed into voting against their own interests is so much easier than convincing the well-off into “taking one for the team.” The alternative – tiring them into not voting at all.

  • The alternative – tiring them into not voting at all.

    That’s like trying to wear me down into losing the mood to screw. The more difficult you try to obstruct me, the more I’m determined to get some.

  • rufussondheim

    I hear screws are buy one get one free at Home Depot, Ryan. Just in case you didn’t know.

  • Ryan and Mohammed,

    I am saying when people, normal 99% people, vote against their own interests this is why. Because the Republicans know how to talk to them and the Democrats do not. You see how Ryan comes with his Dow Jones and Forbes list stuff? Normal folks tune all that out and want to know “Are you gonna get us some jobs or what?” They’re going to vote for the guy who says “Yes!” Not the guy who explains why it’s taking so long. And I think most people believe in giving someone a chance. They figure they gave Barack Obama a chance and it didn’t work out so maybe they should give someone else a chance. In this case the only other choice is Mitt Romney. The normal person on the street who doesn’t follow politics all day long doesn’t think in this red and blue team way. They don’t think of Romney as being on the same team as Bush. So they’re not going to hold Bush’s mistakes against Romney. There are people who only vote every four years, if that. They have no idea that the House and Senate matter so much. They think it’s all on the President. The Decider. So to them everything happening right now is Barack Obama’s fault, all by himself. Bush’s stuff was the 8 years before that. The day he left it stopped being his fault as far as they’re concerned. They know their own Congressmen and Congresswoman are supposed to fight to get stuff for them but they don’t get into the gory details. They don’t know how little the President can actually get done without them.

    I hate to break it you, but you educated voters have just as many votes as the people who can be tricked by fancy talk and lies. One.

  • I am saying when people, normal 99% people, vote against their own interests this is why.

    I know exactly what you meant, Antoinette. You’re talking about the face of the Republican Party the hidden powers intend for all of us to see.

    I know that. I hope you know that the aspect I’m bring up is the reason those faces of true believers find themselves riding machinery that drives itself, no matter who’s fooled into thinking they’re at the wheel.

    Are there similar puppet masters pulling the strings for Democrats? I feel confident there are.

    All depends on whether we choose to side with the more supportive Muppets or fall in with the scarier Punch and Judy show.

    Please allow me to focus on the factors that trouble me most, because I’m not disagreeing with you;, ok? I’m trying to back you up.

  • Sam

    Oh common…

    TIFF is going on right now with a terrific lineup of movies and all guys wanna talk about is this? Give me a break. Unless any of your guys names ends in Eastwood who gives a shit. He’s got no effect on your lives, you guys make your own decisions. I don’t care who celebs vote for, I care because I enjoy what they do for a living. I love Clint because he is a terrific filmmaker and actor. I feel the same about other actors like Brad Pitt, Natalie Portman and others. They are entitled to their opinions and that’s great but I enjoy them for their craft. Now can we get to talking about movies again cause that’s why I love this site. Looper just opened up. Lawless hasn’t been talked about at all and it’s terrific with two of the better performances I’ve seen all year from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce. Let’s talk about that…

  • Mattoc

    This thread is so one-sided, with an obvious bias against Mr Eastwood.
    Has anyone spoken to the chair?

  • Can we try to maintain a little respect? “The chair”? Is that a nice way to refer to Mr. Omar Chairif?

  • Mattoc

    Well, the chair is obviously unstable…

  • No you’re not. You’re saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot. Again. And I’m explaining why they’re not. I’m mainly explaining it to non-Americans who just see us on their local news and think “What’s wrong with those people?”. People are being lied to, have been lied to for years and years by politicians from both parties, and now have no idea who to trust. They know that 4 years ago President Obama said he’d fix it. It’s not fixed. So they don’t trust him either. They might count that as a lie. So if he lied and Romney seems like a big fat liar, what difference does it make, they might wonder, if they give the new guy a chance to fix it? They’re all a bunch of liars anyway. That’s why they do what seems to not make sense.

    Now can we get to talking about movies again cause that’s why I love this site. Looper just opened up. Lawless hasn’t been talked about at all and it’s terrific with two of the better performances I’ve seen all year from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce. Let’s talk about that…

    Yes we’ve all been begging to talk about LAWLESS, but apparently it no longer exists. It had an article back when Sasha saw it at Cannes that should suffice, so we were told. Meanwhile that Obama movie that’s supposed to be evil got a few articles in the last couple weeks. LOOPER didn’t play here yet I don’t think. So I can’t talk to you about that one, or I’d do so right here.

  • You’d be unstable too if some strange old rawhide dude abducted you, dragged you onstage in front of millions of people and threatened to pop your chairy.

  • No you’re not. You’re saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot.

    Gimme a break. 48 comments on this page and I’ve only tangled with Jerm. And only with Jerm because he’s throwing a fit that’s only been planted in his head.

    Do you think I made that chart myself? No. I had to have it shown to me. Maybe whatever news channel Jerm watches doesn’t want him to see that chart or to think about it. That’s why I went to the trouble to share it.

    Maybe the news channel Jerm chooses to watch only wants to hammer this lie by repeating it over and over: “Obama failed because he said he would work to cut the deficit in half, and he didn’t do it, so he must have lied and failed and therefore we need to kick him out.”

    Does that mean he shuts down any other source of information? Good god, I hope not. Never mind that the only rational plan for cutting the deficit in half is to raise revenue back to sane levels. And the only means a government has to pay for the costs of the services it provides is to collect taxes.

    Nevermind that the deficit WOULD BE CUT IN HALF RIGHT NOW if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire like they were supposed to.

    I go to the trouble of trying to demonstrate that fact with a basic learning tool: a chart. And when I share it, the chart is ignored.

    So that’s a bullheaded refusal to acknowledge a simple truth, and I think anyone who refuses to see something so obvious is exhibiting a very sad lack of thinking skills.

    What the fuck, Antoinette? Why are you being so antagonistic? throwing the grenade of a LIE about me, saying, “You tell everybody who doesn’t agree with you that they’re an idiot.”

    That is bullshit. You know it.

  • Sam


    Yeah I’d love to talk and hear about Lawless. It was terrific.. Tom Hardy deserves some recognition. Between this and TDKR he’s had a hell of a year. As for Looper, it just opened at TIFF an got a great review over at Which got me even more excited because it’s a terrific movie site. Willis and Levitt got high praise and JGL is right up there with Hardy as having a great year. This is what I’d love to be reading about.

  • You know, Antionette, aside from the bug up your butt tonight. What’s wrong with the slant I offered about the Koch brothers and other Republicans who reap enormous wealth from the stock market profits Obama helped to salvage?

    And then they use the money Obama’s economy put in their pocket to try to destroy him? Is that not sick and perverse? Is that not an angle worth talking about?

    Are you saying it’s false when I point out that there ARE INDEED people who are much better off than they were 4 years ago and they STILL hate Barack Obama? Is there anything wrong with pointing that out?

    If not, then what is this:

    They know that 4 years ago President Obama said he’d fix it. It’s not fixed. So they don’t trust him either. They might count that as a lie.

    It does not matter if they count it as a lie. Obama did not lie about that. And I will not step back timidly and say, “Oh ok, if it looks a lie to your uninformed eyes, then just continue on enjoying your world of imaginary lies and I won’t even bother to dispel a damaging falsehood.”

    Because I thought we’re here to clarify things. Not reinforce people’s shallow lack of comprehension.

    What’s wrong with trying to correct that misconception? You wanted to explain one part of the situation. I wanted to explain another part. Since when does that make you come at me with your claws out?

  • Suzanne

    Sasha, I don’t post here much, but I’ve been reading you for around 10 years, and I just want to say this is maybe the best thing I’ve read from a film blogger/critic about the Eastwood debacle. I’m tired of others trying to use his age or his reputation (cf Ebert, “one of the most admirable stars of all time” or something) to try to justify the speech.

  • Mattoc

    The chair knew what it was doing. It’s a shame it didn’t upholster it’s end of the bargain.

  • Ryan, you are completely intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share your political views. It’s not new. You’re not even paying attention to anything I’ve said. You’re just using it to put forth your dogma once again. Now you’re attacking me for nothing. I didn’t curse at you or say anything remotely rude. And you’re supposed to be the moderator here. You’re the only one who called anyone an idiot. And you’ve done it before. Somehow Jerm doesn’t count? So you call him an idiot right here, and saying something about it makes me the antagonistic one?

    You know, Antionette, aside from the bug up your butt tonight.

    What the fuck, Antoinette? Why are you being so antagonistic?

    Hmm… yeah I’m the one being nasty. All I was doing was trying to point out why other people shouldn’t be called idiots or considered stupid because of their views and you interpret that as me coming after you out of nowhere. Being militant rarely works. You should try another tack.

  • Jerm

    Well thank you Antoinette for coming to my aide. Though Ryan doesn’t always jump on people when they have a differing opinion, when it is political he is there to attack….not that sticking up for your opinion is a bad thing; but when you freak out and start cursing and calling me an idiot I think you are going a little crazy and overboard. I did not bash you or talk down to you for your personal beliefs, nor will I ever, because that kind of stuff is immature and not needed in this type of conversation. I’am not offended by any means because it doesn’t bother me all that much. No hard feelings, and I will check out those charts. Got to stay informed on both sides!

    We all share the same love for film and that’s what we are here to discuss. Politics like I said divides people. Causes dumb fights. So let’s have less political mumbo jumbo and get to the deeper issues like who the heck is gonna win or get nominated for some Oscars this year 😉

  • So 16 trillion in debt and thats not Obama’s fault?

    No, Jerm. NO. It is not. No. The 16 trillion is not Obama’s fault.

    Look at the chart. The chart was packed with up with $11 trillion the day Obama stepped into this shit.

    How is that $11 trillion his fault?
    How are the $2 trillion racked up in additional Bush tax breaks Obama’s fault?
    How are the cost of war that Bush started Obama’s fault?
    How is the huge financing interest fee larded on top of all of Bush’s debt Obama’s fault?

    Look at the chart. Look where the number was when Bush took office.

    By the time Bush left office, he had let that debt balloon to more that twice what it was when he entered office. From 25% to 60%. From 5 Trillion to 11 Trillion. That’s all GW Bush.

    How is that additional $6 trillion Obama’s fault, Jerm?

    Now the debt that rose after Bush left office in disgrace is all part of the blaze of debt that Bush set on fire, and was never able to extinguish. Bush did not even try to extinguish it. And none of us ever heard a complaint about the deficit while Bush was building that bonfire.

    Now the price of those horribly costly mistakes keep adding up. And nobody wants to help Obama stop them. Cingree Won’t ALLOW Obama to stop the skyrocketing debt.


    Listen Jerm. Can we run through this as a simple analogy?

    Let’s say you rent a new apartment.
    The previous tenant broke the faucet.
    Water gushes out, water swirls down the drain, the water bill rises.

    You think, “ok, I’ll have that faucet fixed as soon as I move in.”
    So you move in and you find that the previous tenant has not even paid his water bill for 8 years.

    Now you have to figure out how to pay for the wasted water of the past 8 years.
    You think, “ok, I can manage that, just let me fix this broken faucet first.”

    You call the landlord (Congress).
    You tell the landlord (Congress), “hey, let’s get this water shut off, the water bill is getting huge.”

    The landlord (Congress) tells you, “Nope. Can’t let you shut that water off. ”
    “You deal with the rising cost. You’re the new tenant. You figure something out.”

    So you say, ” um, I did figure something out. My simple solution is: Shut this water off!”

    Landlord/Congress: “No. You can’t. You don’t have authority. Only the landlord has authority. And the landlord is not going to let you shut the water off.”

    4 years later, your $11 trillion water bill is now $16 trillion.

    How much of that is your fault, Jerm? Did you cause all that expense?


    Now let’s look at this simple fact: Just simple arithmetic.

    You understand basic subtraction, right Jerm?

    There was $11 trillion in debt when Obama took office. It’s $16 trillion now.

    Can you subtract that smaller number from the larger number? 16 – 11 = ? …what?
    Can you answer that question?
    Is the answer 5?

    So how the heck is the total $16 trillion Obama’s fault, Jerm?

    You ask me. You ask me, “So 16 trillion in debt and that’s not Obama’s fault?”

    No. No. It’s not.

    Do you now see why it’s not?

    Because I gotta tell you Jerm, I gotta be honest. If can not understand that much, unless you are 4 years old, then you are a peruntosub — a person-unable-to-subtract.

    Now we get to watch Antoinette scold me because I call people who can’t subtract 11 from 16 a peruntosub .

    Jerm, I believe you know how to subtract 11 from 16. I believe you understand how to subtract 3 trillion from 5 trillion. If you do understand then you will agree, Obama didn’t lie.

    And the $16 trillion is not his fault. You can see that now. I have faith in you.

  • “You’re just using it to put forth your dogma”

    Good grief. My “dogma,” huh?

    Now we’re in a zone where calling a lie a lie is “dogma.”

    That’s part of the problem with this bogus “balanced” discourse in the media.

    There are truths. There are lies. Yes?

    So it’s ok for anybody to twist the truth and it’s “just opinion.”

    But nobody wants to offend a liar by calling him out. wtf?

    Then if I try to pin down the truth and highlight the truth — that’s “dogma”?

    It’s not dogma to know the difference between the truth and a lie, Antoinette. It’s not dogma to explain a fact.

    So they don’t trust Obama either. They might count that as a lie. So if he lied and Romney seems like a big fat liar, what difference does it make, they might wonder, if they give the new guy a chance to fix it? They’re all a bunch of liars anyway. That’s why they do what seems to not make sense.

    But see? I does make sense if all you do is stand by and condone it. If you fold up and wilt and concede so easily. “So if he lied….” There is no “if,” Antoinette. He Did Not Lie.

    You want to say, “well I guess it’s understandable if somebody has the opinion that Obama lied about the deficit.”

    No. It’s not an opinion. It’s a mistake. It a simple mistake of not knowing the facts. You cannot coddle that. You cannot shrug it off.

    No. If you’re like me, you stand up for what you know is the truth.

    I don’t care if Jerm believes me or doesn’t change his mind. But I’m not going to let a dumb lie hang out there unchallenged.

    And I am no afraid of calling it dumb. DUMB. Anyone who choses to ignore an easily provable math problem is not very smart about the subject at hand. That’s another fact.

    that person has no buisness trying to discuss economics if he cannot subtract 11 from 16.

    I hope to hell when Romney lies about this in the debate, Obama doesn’t wither up and say, “ok, that’s your opinion.”

    ….. “Oh Ryan, you need to be tolerant of their views, their views, their views, their views…”

    Fuck false vies.
    No I don’t have to be tolerant of false views.

    I don’t have to be tolerant of stupidity. Why? Why do I have to tolerate a nimcompoop?

    …. “wuuuuuh, all that $16 trillion is all Obama’s fault.”

    I’m not going to tolerate that shit, Antointte. It’s dumb.

    I’ve explained it in the simplest kindergarten terms I can think of. I’ve wasted 2 hours of my evening explaining 16 minus 11 is 5. And only a couple of trillion of that 5 trillion can be be called Obama’s “fault”

    (Weird word, fault. Is my phone bill my “fault” . No. Things cost money. It’s not my fault. It’s only my responsibility..

    “Being Militant doesn’t work.” you tell me.

    hey, maybe I’m working tonight. maybe I’m just here as a volunteer math tutor.

    You know, I get tired of trying to “work” these discussions.

    I don’t always have to be the moderator either, ok? Sometimes I can just say what I think, like everybody else does.

  • The Dude

    Well, I predicted four years ago that Obama would have trouble being reelected exactly because people were putting unrealistic expectations on him, so no surprise there.

    But anyway, if a convicted rapist of childen has no problems winning a (deserved) Oscar, then Eastwood should have no problems in winning or getting a nom for one…in theory. In pratice, his chances are 99,9% dead. In Hollywood, and in many parts of the world, the worst thing a man can do for a leftist is being a right-winger, and vice-versa, but if he’s “one of the boys”, then it’s all forgiven.

  • Dudu Banget

    Hey Ryan A, I wonder how you look like in person since you don’t use real photo on your avatar. 😀

  • Dave B

    Good for you, Sasha. Art and politics have often intertwined, and your analysis is spot-on.
    While I do agree with the comments that Clint had the right to say what he did, and he most certainly does, Sasha has a right to comment on a public figure making a public speech. She didn’t eavesdrop on a phone conversation! When Eastwood took that stage, he opened himself up to all sorts of reviews, comments and, yes, criticism. Just like Romney did, just like Clinton did, just like Obama did. If you’re gonna take to the stage, THIS is the instance as one commentator said, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
    I do think it will hurt his Oscar chances, but looking at the caliber of the Best Actor category this year (Joaquin Phoenix, Daniel Day-Lewis, John Hawkes, Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington, Bill Murray and Matt Damon), they were kinda limited any way.
    Also, Sasha, you picked the right word in describing the House in their attempt to block any and all that Obama tried to do. Only scum would put the country at greater risk to further their own political gain. And if the Dems had tried it, I’d say the same about them.
    As far as my own opinion of Clint, I still think he’s a good actor and great director. Nothing he could say will change that. Just like no matter what Woody Allen did changed my respect and admiration for him as a filmmaker. Same with Jane Fonda, Same with John Wayne, Same with James Stewart. Same with Bob Hope. and so on.
    Though Clint may have come thisclose to having his Charlton Heston “Pry-this-from-my-cold-dead-hands” moment, potentially sabotaging an admirable career, I think – unlike Heston – Clint will recover. His stature will remain unblemished, and this will probably only be a footnote in his life story.
    Again, great work Sasha.

  • Dudu Banget

    I look mean. I look good. Grey eyes.

  • steve50

    Why is it whenever Ryan tries to make a counterpoint, it’s considered an attack? The rhetoric on both sides is strong and persuasive, yet only Ryan is being called out on it. Keep it up, Grey Eyes!

    The criticism of Clint is fair – anyone who uses their professional acclaim to make a political argument lands in the trough with everybody else. This time, Eastwood looked like an idiot to many and a hero to a few, so that makes him fair game. And regarding his oscar chances – he didn’t have any because he’s not that good of an actor, not because of his politics.

  • Leocdc

    I think it’s embarrasing that the Eastwood’s opinions have to change a thing about his film or his Oscar opportunities.
    The man (as every man) can say what he wants, because it’s one of his civil rights.
    I think that politic in USA are completely dirty, and your government is absolutely not trust-worthy. So, you’re never going to publish my comments again, o you’re going to ignore me?.
    Opinions people. In cinema, or in politics, everything are opinions. Just relax and enjoy the game.

  • Jesse

    Sasha you are so biased. BOTH parties want to limit our freedoms. BOTH parties are finances by the super-rich. Obama got more money from Wall Street than any other candidates. Wake up !

  • Jesse

    Oh, and by the way, some Democrats are richer than some Republicans. I am more of a Liberal (I support gay marriage and abortion) but even I can realize that there are a lot of very rich people who support the Dems (Spielberg, Geffen, Oprah… they are part of the 1%), and when it comes to actual Democrats, not just people supporting them, let’s talk about John Kerry, let’s talk about Nancy Pelosi, let’s talk about Al Gore…they are also part of the 1%, and some of the Dems have inherited their wealth, they didn’t create it.

    So clearly politics is not your strong suit, you might want to stick to movie reporting and movie reviews, that’s what you’re good at, that’s where you have credibility.

  • Dan

    Eastwood’s movies always, always had a mean sentimental streak to them. Now he’s just mean and sentimental.

  • mileshigh

    This will do well. A Clint Eastwood movie about baseball featuring a major plot about connecting with his daughter. It seems middle America…and will find its audience. Clints Romney support could enhance the box office. My Tea Party father wants to see it.

  • Mike B.


    Answer me this…Why has Obama decided to extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

    ALSO…when someone promises something and doesn’t come through with it, what does that show about them? I don’t wanna argue that our debt deficit is Bush or Obama’s fault but rather…if someone applies for a job and tells you that they can cut your overhead by half, you hear what they’re saying and like it. So you hire them. But somehow throughout the months they are there the overhead doubles.

    You call in your employee and ask him why it doubled. He says it was the fault of the previous guy who held the job. You say, I don’t care. You PROMISED to cut my overhead. I don’t give a damn about the other guy because I fired him!!!

    So what would you do? Would you let him stay or look for someone who might do the job better? Answer: I think anyone of us who own a business could tell you that you replace the guy because of false promises.

  • Jesse Crall

    I agree with half of what “Other Jesse” says. Both parties are deep into Wall Street’s pocket and even Nancy Pelosi has had some iffy dealings with credit card companies that altered her voting on certain consumer protection bills. If you’re fed up with both parties, amen. It’s the knuckleheads who think that the Repubs’ll lead us into the streamlined economic future with integrity and protection for Americans who have their heads up their asses.

    Where I DISAGREE with Other Jesse is in regards to this site doing away with political discourse. There’s a link between politics and Hollywood and politics and media representation and it’s generally worth covering. Sasha’s a talented enough writer that even when I disagree with her, she’s on-the-ball and can make a cogent point that’s better than the convoluted blitherings I see elsewhere.

  • Matt

    “He directs films that star minorities, films that don’t only embrace the white-forward manifesto, as the Republican party does.”

    I’ve added several blogs that support my year round oscar fervor. Yours is an obvious place to go to on this note. I have been a frequent reader, but not really much of a poster. It’s your blog, you do well with it, get to go to fantastic festivals and such, good job! But if I may, it’s a blog after all, you seem to be very cynical towards the oscars in general. You get to do this with a certain degree of weight and validation, rather than say, put up stuff on facebook no one reads, etc. But this cynicism is frustrating since you seem to have so much going for you in your committment to the oscars. Why not be more joyful about it? Last year had a great slate of movies and the Artist is just fantastic, but you had to be so negative about the whole process. the whole over psychologizing of the process is a bit silly. the voters do think independently and sometimes the reason they pick something is simply because that’s the movie they really liked, and sometimes the movie they really liked was simply a fantastic movie… “the trick is not minding” is kind of an automatic way to fail at that very goal. of course you mind. It’s difficult to point out specific examples on this one, i’m just using this as a jumping off point for a general response… but the statements regarding politics are frustrating. Republicans can be overly negative, but that is not an excuse to do the same. The quote at the top is a bit much. It’s a bit hyperbolic. My response to the Clint thing in general is that both the conventions are basically infomercials (quoting Jon Stewart) and I’m glad Clint had the only thing at both conventions not entirely orchestrated by campaign managers. Sure it was bad, kind of a train wreck, but so what? It was refreshing to see something so unprepeared.

  • Answer me this…Why has Obama decided to extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

    That’s simple. When the Bush Tax Cut package went into effect in 2001, those new TEMPORARY rates included some really nice tax relief for the middle class as well. Obama wisely felt that while we’re still digging out from the depths of a recession now is not the time to lay more stress on the middle class.

    The way this law was written and its provisions interwoven, you can’t just let the good part of a law remain and get rid of the bad part.

    The thinking goes like this: When multi-millionaires get a tax $25,000 tax break, they put that money into savings (or a Swiss bank). But in hard times, when a middle class family gets a $2,500 windfall in tax relief, they put that money right back into the economy. The middle-class tax relief is the part of the law intended to keep that money churning back into the recovery.

    A millionaire doesn’t have have any trouble dropping $25,000. For a struggling family, $2500 can pay for all kinds of semi-essentials that they might otherwise have decided not to buy.

    Mike B. This aspect of the Bush tax cuts is very much-discussed in good news venues. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t understand that Obama wanted to preserve the tax relief for the middle-class — and that his push new plan that would protect middle-clas families is what created all this resistance in Congress.

    How do I know this? I read it in the leftie magazines and heard it on the leftie news channels.

    How have you NOT heard about this? It makes me wonder where you get your information — or lack of it, or your disinformation.

    I’m not trying to insult you, ok? I’m insulting the news sources you rely on. Everybody I know understands why Obama needed to keep the tax cuts in effect as we dug out of the recession. Why don’t you know it?

    So, that was a long answer to a simple question. It’s easy to explain. Short answer: To preserve tax relief for the middle class.

    The NEW Tax rates that Obama wants to have take effect would continue to preserve ALL the MIDDLE CLASS tax rates we have now. It would ONLY raise taxed incrementally on people who earn more than $250,000 a year.

    Are you one of the unfortunate victims who earns more than $250,000 a year? Let’s have a show of hands. How many of us earn more than $250,000 a year? Heck, how many of us even hang out with people who earn that much. (your doctor and lawyer don’t count as people you hang out with.)

    How do you NOT know this? It’s not complicated. It’s not a secret. It’s not hard to find out.

    If you watched MSNBC you would hear this FACT 10 or 20 times a week. Now maybe the thought of watching MSNBC is repellant to you (I have no idea how you feel). But I’m telling you this: You won’t learn these simple basic IMPORTANT facts watching FOX or casually tuning in to CNN.

    You wouldn’t have to ask me such a simple question if you would seek out better sources of news for yourself. I hope that doesn’t sound patronizing. I say it with true sincerely. I’m trying to help you be better informed, ok?

  • Mike B.

    Thanks for that answer, but I was more referring to why Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts if he thinks the rich should be taxed more…

    And I like how you seemed to ignore the second half of my original post.

  • Nic V

    I wished we could get away from the political issues but sadly since it’s Clint Eastwood everyone will have a tie in so that the “film” bloggers can work their magic. Well rather spin their magic.

    The empty chair was actually not such bad idea when you compare that emtpy chair to President Obama’s voting record in the Senate where “present” seemed to be his position on many of the issues that face our country.

    I think the President now has something larger than an empty chair to worry about considering that at the last minute there was the changes in the platform. I find interesting that the President didn’t realize that “god” had not been mentioned or rather removed from the platform. I really could care less whether “god” was mentioned or not. I find even more interesting the issue about Jerusalem. I guess the President hadn’t read the platform.

    Yeah Clint talked to an empty chair. President Obama who knew that Jerusalem or a reference to “god” was not in the platform decided at the last minute to do a drama act and insist it both items be re- inserted. And it backfired. Cause I saw the clips and there is no way that there was a two thirds majority to make the vote succeed. Was almost as bad as Al Gore losing to George Bush.

  • Nic V

    Some Democrats are richer than Republicans? I love that cause immediately comes to mind John Corizine. The Wall Street Mogol bought his Senate Seat for 65 million dollars. And recently could not remember or find out where all the money his depositors had given him in an investment company went too. Wasn’t it deposited in off shore banks?

  • Nic V

    Some Democrats are richer than Republicans? I love that cause immediately comes to mind John Corizine. The Wall Street Mogol bought his Senate Seat for 65 million dollars. And recently could not remember or find out where all the money his depositors had given him in an investment company went too. Wasn’t it deposited in off shore banks?

  • Jesse

    If you want to compare, Nancy Pelosi is far richer than Michele Bachmann. That’s the truth.

    Again, I am more of a liberal (I support gay mariage and adoption) but I don’t believe in this “good people on the left vs bad people on the right” narrative that so many of my leftist friends try to promote. I think they are either dishonest or VERY naive. You can find greedy individuals on both sides. You can find politicians with deep ties to Wall Street on both sides. You can find corrupt politicians on both sides. That’s just the way it is.

  • Nic V

    I’m more of a conservative democrat. Have been a registered democrat for over forty years. As a child of the sixties I was about as liberal as they come but with time and evolution one becomes more conservative as they become older. There are certain issues however that I will always be liberal about and some I suppose I won’t. I don’t believe anyone should be taxed more than anyone else. I think everyone should pay the same rate regardless of who they are or how successful they are. I don’t believe the government should be telling people about their personal lives that’s not their job. There job is too insure the country runs and succeeds not whether I wear a seat belt. I don’t believe I have right as a human to dictate to any other human what they should do with their body. I believe everyone should be given the same services regardless of gender, race or religion. Glaring to me is the fact that the people we send to serve us in Washington, the people we pay quite handsomely to become our representatives have better health care at our expense than we do. And their health care is not partisan. And what do they give us?

    As for Presidential promises not kept well I recall very distinctly that President Obama promised to close Guantanamo. I understand torture. I don’t relate to it because I simply haven’t experienced so I can’t. But because I can’t relate to the experience doesn’t mean that I find it acceptable especially since we were always as a country outraged when we heard of it done somewhere else in the world. I kind of believe that the “inmates” in Guantanamo are no longer experiencing that type of behavior. But he did promise to close Guantanamo and did not. So that’s at least one campaign promise he didn’t deliver on. I wouldn’t if I were him brag about the current status of the public educational system either.

    I don’t believe that President Obama is a bad man in fact based on what we’ve had before President Obama he has some of the highest moral standards that we’ve found to inhabit the White House. But I also don’t think that Mitt Romney is a bad man either.

    No one knows every republican or any democrat and to generalize them in an off hand attack because of their party affiliation seems like the same type of rhetoric that was used to support segregation.

    Corruption knows no political party, no gender, no race, no religion….corruptions is simply the greasing of a hand and the hand doesn’t care where the corruption comes from.

  • Daniel

    Sasha, your comments about the Republican Party are so ignorant and stupid that I just showed them to some of my Romney staffers, and they provided us with a good laugh. You keep writing your hateful diatribes – they brighten up our day.

  • Sally in Chicago

    What’s head scratching is that he’s a Libertarian and believes in only 1/10 of what the Republicans believe in.

  • Ryan Adams

    I just showed them to some of my Romney staffers, and they provided us with a good laugh. You keep writing your hateful diatribes – they brighten up our day.

    God know Romney staffers need a bright day. Whatever delusional overconfidence works for you guys.

  • Ryan Adams

    Nic V, I’m tired of being the AD investigative reporter.

    If you don’t know why Guantanamo is still open then you’re listening to shitty news channels and reading the wrong news sites. The plain simple explanation is only a google search away.

    How can people NOT know why Obama was unable to close Guantanamo? Honestly, is NONE of this ever dealt with on network news?

    If you have trouble fiinding the answer, Nic. Just tell me. I’ll point you to the reason instantly.

    But seriously, I am so bored trying to wake people up from their disinformation coma. Tedious and depressing to be reminded that people are so ill-informed.


    Poll over the weekend asked Ohio Republicans who’s more responsible for the successful raid on Bin Laden — Romney or Obmama?

    15% of Ohio Republicans say Romney got Bin Laden, 47% are “unsure”

    So you tell me — are those republican poll respondents stupid or are they liars? Those are the only two options.

  • Ryan Adams

    Clint Eastwood’s speech was aimed at lowbrows too. Not deliberately. Because it was off-the-cuff. But it appealed to low-brows because it was delivered with language on a 4th grade reading level.

    And deliberate scheme or not, isn’t it telling that Eastwood’s natural speech patterns are understandable to a 4th grader?

    Ann Romney spoke to the RNC using language dumbed down to a 5th grade level.
    Michelle Obama spoke at the DNC in language rated at a 12th grade level of comprehension.

    This, according to the The Flesch-Kincaid test — designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level.

    One week after Ann Romney set a record for delivering a speech written at the lowest grade level in convention history by the wives of presidential nominees, Michelle Obama delivers a speech written at the highest ever grade level.

    The First Lady’s speech on Tuesday evening was delivered at a grade level of 12.84 – more than 3.5 grade levels above the next highest speech of the 10 previous prepared remarks delivered by wives of presidential nominees since the first such address in 1992 by Barbara Bush.

    They’ve run the numbers on other sites for the other major speeches. Here’s a recap.

    Grade Level / Convention speech

    12.84 / Michelle Obama
    10.46 / Bill Clinton:
    9.59 / President Obama

    7.98 / Mitt Romney
    4.51 / Clint Eastwood
    5.80 / Ann Romney (the dumbest speech by a candidate’s spouse in convention history)

    There’s truth and lies. There’s smart and dumb.

    I’m not going apologize for pointing out stupidity and lies. There’s nothing wrong with those words to describe what we’re seeing among Republicans this year.

  • Ryan Adams

    ah fuck. I can’t let frustration get me down. Here’s the truth about Guantanamo.

    — President Obama cannot close the Bush-created prison at Guantanamo Bay, or try the remaining detainees still stuck in that island gulag, on his own. Like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, Gitmo is a creature of Congress, and only Congress can kill it.

    -– President Obama came into office in January 2009, and two days after his inauguration, he signs his first executive order, calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year.

    — Less than five months later, Congress votes overwhelmingly to neutralize that executive order, and to keep Gitmo open, by choking off the funds needed to enact the executive order by building new facilities, seeking deportations, etc. The vote in the Senate was 90 to 6.

    — In November 2009, the Obama administration tried another tack: they plan to move 100 remaining Gitmo detainees (not including KSM and other 9/11 direct suspects) to an all-but abandoned, state-of-the-art prison in Illinois. The rural town wanted the deal, and the jobs that would come with it. Again, the deal was blocked, and demogogued, by Congressional Republicans…

    — To be clear: Barack Obama vowed to close Gitmo, and took concrete steps to try and do so. But he could not have anticipated the obstruction that would come from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

    President Obama doesn’t have a set of keys to the padlocks at cells at Guantano. He does not have the authority to close it all by himself. If Congress refuses to cooperate he can’t do it

    Just like we don’t have 2 million new jobs lifting the economy right now because Congress refuses to pass the jobs bill Pres Obama has repeatedly sent them.

  • Jared Shelton

    I think it’s sad that probably 10 times as many words have been written about what Clint Eastwood said, than what either major presidential candidate said in their speeches.

    I’m as guilty as anyone else, though. I haven’t posted anything online about my opinions of Romney’s or Obama’s speeches, but here I go posting this…. lol

  • Walt Coogan

    Although I thoroughly agree with the overall article, let me make a point about Eastwood’s “thorat-slashing” gesture. It proved unfortunate and he appeared oblivious to the implications or how it might come across, but I have seen Eastwood make that same gesture multiple times in the past. At an awards banquet or on a talk show, for instance, he has made that gesture as a self-effacing signal to the audience that the applause no longer needed to continue. At the 1996 American Film Institute ceremony where Eastwood received the AFI’s Life Achievement Award, Eastwood actually stated late in his acceptance speech, “I think I’ve probably got to get off, I don’t see a hook coming out to snap me around the neck,” and as he made that comment, he draw his finger across his neck in that “slashing” gesture, obviously referring to himself. Perform a Youtube search for “Clint Eastwood AFI 1996” and click on the first video that comes up.

    So I don’t think that Eastwood intended anything violent or threatening at all toward President Obama, but he obviously proved oblivious and careless about how some folks would interpret the gesture.

  • メンズ 腕時計 人気

Check Also

Predictions Friday – Manchester and Moonlight Get a Boost

It isn’t that people weren’t predicting Kenneth Lonergan’s Manchester by…