Go Ahead, Make My Day

Here’s Clint Eastwood’s performance at the RNC, soon to be considered a classic. A bit wobbly, but still pretty funny.

Will it change anything? I doubt it. I can’t see any worshipers switching sides because of this. But it does give a morale boost, and every little helps. I generally hate celebrities using their fame to push political ideology, and I’d feel that way about this appearance except that Eastwood at least spent a couple years as mayor of Carmel, CA. He ran for office and everything. A small thing, sure, but better than the rest of the Hollywood luvvies. It was apparently too mind-numbingly grinding for him to deal with his wealthy neighbors and their petty zoning squabbles, so he didn’t seek a second term. But he has at least that experience, a little bit of credibility, which none of the Obamessiah-worshiping celebs do.

However, I was momentarily taken aback by Eastwood’s harsh swipe at the war in Afghanistan. The current President didn’t start it, so it can only be taken really as a criticism of the whole war, which means of Bush. Maybe I’m the only one who took it that way, and even some – not most – in the audience laughed. But it sure sounded like he was criticizing the war in total with that dig about the Russians being there for 10 years. None of the punditocracy seems to have noticed, not that I’ve seen yet, anyway.

Other than that, it was very cutting, not at all kind to the President. Beeboids probably burning any Eastwood DVDs they own right about now.

May as well make this a thread for discussion of the BBC’s attacks on the convention in general, so I’ll also point out that once again the BBC went for a Left-wing, partisan voice for their “Viewpoint” piece. The same one as last time, actually: P.J. Crowley. He was previously asked by the BBC to come up with several biased foreign policy questions for the Republican candidates. Crowley’s latest contribution is equally biased, insulting “neo-conservatives who want to save the world”. Much worse is his telling the outright lie that criticism of the President’s job performance is “about style more than substance”. That’s an unbelievable lie. What was the criticism of ObamaCare and the Stimulus and Solyndra and caving to the Russians and China, to name just a handful of examples? That was all criticism about specific policies, and not about how the President appeared detached, or was too cool, or any of that BS. But fits right in with the BBC viewpoint: there can be no legitimate criticism of Him and His Word.

Wake me up when the BBC asks someone from even slightly right of center to write any Viewpoint piece on any topic.

Please feel free to add critiques of other BBC output about the convention to this thread.

Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Go Ahead, Make My Day

  1. DB says:

    BBC: Clint Eastwood speech bemuses fellow stars.

    Because that’s what really matters.

    The GOP base loved it, but never mind that.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Film critic Roger Ebert said the actor had come across as “sad and pathetic”.

      What, this Roger Ebert? “A supporter of the Democratic Party, Ebert publicly urged liberal filmmaker Michael Moore to give a politically charged acceptance speech at the Academy Awards”


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        In other news, church members burned a heretic at the stake, and this was considered an important opinion we should all take into consideration.


      • Craig says:

        Adam Levine of pop band Maroon 5 said:
        ““Dear America, if you don’t re-elect @BarackObama, I’m gonna lose my s—,”

        And Zachary Quinto describes himself as “a left-leaning Democrat”.

        Hmm, come now BBC, just why do you think all these pro-Obama, Democrat celebs don’t rate Clint’s performance at the RNC?


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Mark my words: if Romney wins, these people – especially the Beeboids – are going to freak out as if we were Jews who spurned Jesus in favor of Barabas.

          They have so much emotionally invested in Him it’s a bit frightening.


          • hippiepooter says:

            Hmm, I dont think ‘sanctity’ is the quality they admire in Obama …


          • Buggy says:

            The last edition of “US Electoral Leftie Wonk-Out” took down Baldwin-Basinger in fun, “pass-the-popcorn” style.

            Which true believers are going to go splitsville this time ? Or re-locate to this side of the pond, which will obviously be much less enjoyable.


        • Bob says:

          Let me guess, is it “Shirt”?
          Except it doesn’t match the number of dashes.
          Did he place a large wager on an Obama win?

          Never heard of Maroon 5.
          Are they popular?


          • London Calling says:

            This Adam Levine:
            “Adam Levine flaunts anti-Mormon bigotry in tweet about Romney’s ‘magic underwear’
            Tweets “Magic underwear don’t fail me now!”

            Just another millionaire popsinger hypocrite wearing his politics as a fashion item:

            “The first time I went to Adam’s house,” says the country singer and fellow Voice coach Blake Shelton, “I told him, ‘Man, you’re exactly the rock star I wanted you to be.’ There’s a grand piano in his bedroom. From his pool outside, you look up the hill and there’s the Hollywood sign. I mean, there were models hanging around. It was badass.”

            “Nothing wrong with making money,” Levine says. “I’m always quoting the part in Jerry Maguire when Cuba Gooding talks about the ‘kwan’: ‘love, respect, community, and the dollars, too.’


        • Reed says:

          …at least one Democrat supporter liked it…

          Kirstie Alley:
          I just saw Clint Eastwood’s speech and I LOVED it!! Funny as hell & on point!!..& I’m a Democrat..US media is SO biased in favor of Dems


          …another journo for Obama not so much…

          Tom Brokaw :
          Clint Eastwood became huge star as a man of few words As a surprise guest on the Tampa stage he had too many words (I say as a friend)


          …some Hollyweirdos are just plain nuts, though…

          Ellen Barkin :
          Been unable 2 watch any RNC convention “speeches”…but did Clint Eastwood really make the slitting throat motion…meant for our POTUS???



  2. DB says:

    Re Crowley – yesterday I pointed out to the editors of BBC News online and BBC US news online that once again they’ve “forgotten” to mention that Crowley worked for the Obama administration. Funny how that happens.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      They mentioned that he used to work for the State Dept. “Accurate”, job done.


  3. DB says:

    BBC U.S. news editor Claudia Milne’s hero is a former Jimmy Carter speechwriter:


  4. Antiochean says:

    Remarkable – I watched this after reading the BBC coverage and boy did they get it wrong!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      After re-reading Mardell’s take on it, I think I can almost sense him shaking with anger as he writes about Eastwood playing as the President telling him and Romney to go @#$% themselves.

      Mardell is either too ignorant or to angry to notice that this was clearly a reference to the well-known fact that The Obamessiah personally has a “genuine disdain” for Romney. Mustn’t mention that, of course, as it would detract from His image as the cool, likeable character.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Or not so ‘nice’, if you catch some of the ads coming out. … That was a great aside from Eastwood.

        I think the big down on Eastwood’s piece has more to do with politics than content. For an 82 year old guy to riff that talk off.

        I loved it!

        Over Afghanistan it was very cryptic what Eastwood said.

        You could argue that he was arguing that the wrong approach was taking to fighting the war, and as for his citing Romney’s comment on a telegraphed withdrawal, ‘why not tomorrow morning’ could be a criticism of exit before what can be defined as “victory” has been acheived.

        I loved Romney’s speech. Ryan isn’t a great speechmaker, but inspite of his delivery energy and ideas come out of him.

        I fear though that the powerful propaganda guns of the US MSM (with the BBC helping out as much as they can) will tell the difference in favour of Obama, then one has real and profound fear for the future.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          “You thought the war in Afghanistan was okay; you thought that was something that was worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see what they were doing for the 10 years,” is not cryptic. Not at all. That was a direct criticism of the invasion of Afghanistan itself, and of Bush for doing it.

          I’m surprised more people in the media haven’t seized on this as a way to discredit Eastwood in the eyes of those who liked his speech. Most likely they’re all so blind angry by the virtual mistreatment of their beloved Obamessiah that they’ve all missed it. With the exception, to my surprise and chagrin, of Mardell, that is.


          • max says:

            Probably because it is what Eastwood said and the meaning is what Eastwood intended. The attack machine is all set for creating unsaid quotes, cutting sentences in half and ascribing meanings without regard to rationality. Actually listening and responding to what is said, is so foreign to them that they must have forgotten how to do it (if they ever knew).


  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Good old Mark Mardell. He rubbishes Romney’s chances immediately after faint praise.

    Romney’s speech was not enthralling but a job well done

    The opinion polls still have him running neck and neck with President Barack Obama, but dig a little deeper and they show something else as well. That people may trust Romney more to run the economy but they don’t like him as much as President Obama.

    In fact they don’t really seem to know him at all.

    In other worse, don’t believe your lying eyes. Romney is doomed, doomed, I tell you. But seriously, who gives a damn about likeability at this point, considering the real problems everyone knows this country faces? Not even the BBC’s US President editor can deny that, even though he’s still trying.

    Then Mardell goes on to say that there’s no reason to get excited by the reception Romney got because he was preaching to the choir. The crowd hates the President, never voted for Him in the first place, Romney already had their votes “in the bag”, while the rest of the country has no clue about Romney at all. I guess the massive news coverage hasn’t penetrated yet.

    Still, I wonder if Mardell attributes Romney being tied with the President in polls to that alleged anonymity, and which way would he suggest the polls would go if the country got to know him? Is he saying that the public is giving Romney a chance now only because they don’t know him, or that Romney would be miles ahead if the public knew much about him? This smells of desperation, really.

    Let’s all watch Mardell’s output next week to see if he says the same thing about his beloved Obamessiah’s speech. It’ll be the exact same situation, but who wants to bet that Mardell will see it as inspiring the entire planet?

    But WOW!!!! Mardell agrees with me that Eastwood criticized Bush and the war in Afghanistan! Need to check my sanity. I think I’ll go lie down in a dark room for a while…..


  6. michael holloway says:

    The Americans need Romney to win because they are in the s—.


  7. petrossa says:

    About the afghan war thingie, Obama fiercely criticized Bush for Iraq, but told over and over again the afghan war was a just war. More deaths have fallen under Obama then Bush. Obama has instigated the drone attack system. Good idea, but in view of his lambasting Bush Iraq it’s more then hypocritical to not do the same for Afghanistan which is the point Clint Eastwood tried to make.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      That was part of Eastwood’s point, yes. But he specifically made a crack about nobody asking the Russians before we went in. That’s on Bush and the whole idea of the war itself.


      • TPO says:

        I must be a masochist David. I tuned into the bizarre Rachel Maddow diatribe on MSNBC after watching the GOP convention speeches.
        Maddow was visibly hopping up and down on her seat and working herslef up into a rage that anyone had dared to point fun at the ‘anointed one’.
        Sharpton is recognisable as a wizened little gnome, but the others I didn’t recognise. One thing they had in common was their frothing at the mouth, loony denunciations of Clint Eastwood.
        For the record I thought Eastwood was hilarious in his mocking of a failed president.
        Lets see what Cloony does next week. The beeb’s worship will continue unabaited.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Can’t find a video of the panel, but this clip of her initial reaction shows her livid and stuttering. Matches exactly what Mardell wrote, really, including the bit about it being the weirdest thing she’s ever seen at a convention.

          And I’m sure there’s NO significance to the fact that at the end of the following clip MSNBC has of Eastwood’s speech (if you let it keep playing, it loads after Maddow) we get the BBC News title bump.


          • TPO says:

            It was towards the end of her “show” and just before a commercial break that she started to hop and down.
            I’m filled with a morbid curiosity now as to how they react with the Democrat convention. Just how much fawning adulation will there be? And will Cloony the clown be there too?


            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              Clooney’s not on the official list, but you never know. You can bet the convention will be received with abject worship, and lectures about how the values espoused are the correct ones.


              • hippiepooter says:

                Clooney is a pretty bi-partisan guy when it comes to humanitarian issues. It will indeed be fascinating to see how he bigs up Obama.

                It disturbs me a bit that Romney is a Mormon, but on the whole I’d rather see a Mormon in the White House than a Communist.


                • David Preiser (USA) says:

                  Clooney has already hosted fundraisers for the President and has been working diligently for His second coming. Whatever you mean by saying he’s bi-partisan on humanitarian issues doesn’t mean he’s any less hyper-partisan on the major issues.

                  Also, I find it a bit offensive that you’re disturbed by Romney’s religion. I grew up in a very Mormon area, have seen the type of citizen they generally produce, and do not share your prejudice.


                • hippiepooter says:

                  Well dont be offended DP. ‘Being offended’ is something that has come into a lot of disrepute among sincere democrats. Your references to ‘Second Coming’ and ‘choosing Barabbas over Jesus’ are remarks that one could take offence over, if one didn’t think that ‘taking offence’ is something that should be done exceedingly sparingly in the interests of free speech.

                  Mormon beliefs are weird and freaky.


                • David Preiser (USA) says:

                  Comparing my satirical remarks about how some people overly worship the President to a real prejudice against Mormons is rather unfair, hippie. I could go on about how any religious belief can be described as weird and freaky, but decorum forbids it. The community generally turns out good citizens, with a solid sense of family, duty, and charity, and they don’t rub it in people’s faces on TV. I can’t think of any better Christian values at the end of the day. I couldn’t give a damn what they babble on Sundays.


          • Reed says:

            I notice in that clip, in common with a lot of leftists, Maddow’s first port of call is to suggest that Clint is senile – “Clint Eastwood is 82 years old. I think…I don’t know if that is what was going on there…”

            Will someone call her out on her ‘ageist hate speech’ ? I’m sure she’d be at the front of the froth queue if a right-winger had done something similar. It would seem that labels can only be applied by the left on the right.



  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Forget about the black vote. What really scares the Left and the BBC is the Hispanic vote. Suddenly the Beeboids have discovered that Hispanics are not a monolithic voting bloc, and that many are…oh, the horror….Republicans.

    Hispanic voters are hardly a monolithic bloc. In US demographic jargon, the term refers to anyone descended from a Spanish-speaking country. Polls indicate Hispanic voters are as concerned as non-Hispanic voters about the weak economy and the dismal job growth.

    Even though there’s some dishonesty about the Republicans “scuppering” attempts at immigration reform (They do want to reform the laws, but do not want amnesty for all illegals. To the BBC, that equals refusal to fix things.), the message is clear: Democrats have been taking them for granted, and a lot of Hispanics are more about the values of family and hard work, and are worried about a Socialist type of government taking away their hard-earned success.

    And hey, the BBC has actually admitted here that The Obamessiah has been deporting illegals in record numbers. When news got out and the polls told His handlers this was not a good election strategy, we saw Him change His tune and give orders that illegal young people should not be deported for now.

    Since there are apparently quite a few Hispanic Republicans, does this mean that Jonny Dymond was lying when he said that the Republicans were the Party of old, white America”? Is this what Mark Mardell meant when you told the BBC CoJ that Dymond had done some “fantastic stuff”? (@35:00 in)


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mardell betrays his ignorance and bias in a single tweet:

    Not sure the crowd has noticed Condi is giving them a tough lecture on the need for immigration

    Idiot. The concern is about ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration, full stop. Nobody has a problem with the basic concept of immigration. Does Mardell really not understand that? I know his colleagues do because they hired Franz Strasser to make series of dishonest reports about immigration in which the word “illegal” never appeared. Even when he was reporting from two different so-called “Sanctuary Cities” known for flaunting immigration laws and sheltering illegals.

    FFS, Mia Love’s whole speech was about being the child of immigrants and the American Dream. WTF does he think the crowd’s enthusiastic response was about? Did she flash her tits or something? Mardell is really pathetic sometimes.

    Apologies for the foul language, but this is really poor performance from the BBC’s top man in the US.


    • Buggy says:

      “Mardell is really pathetic sometimes.”

      I have to take issue with the last word there.


  10. JAH says:

    Funny that that arch leftie islam loving green publication The Daily Telegraph isn’t too taken by the Eastwood’s stellar performance:

    Nor indeed are its online readers in a poll. The whole affair was as embarrassing as Cameron wheeling out Michael Caine. These are geriatrics. Where are the younger Republicans?

    There’s a list here and some of them are even creditable with people born after VietNam


    Or maybe they are there but don’t talk to empty chairs.

    Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn’t there
    He wasn’t there again today
    Oh, how I wish he’d go away


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Too bad that one blogger and respondents to a poll (your proof that they’re all conservatives is…..?) are viewing it from a foreign perspective. Yeah, that’ll convince me it was a failure more than the amusing over-reaction and desperate scrambling from the media tells me it wasn’t. And funny how the comments don’t seem to match the poll results. What are the odds, I wonder? I’m glad to see you went with the Rachel Maddow angle of attack and criticized Eastwood’s age. Prejudice much? What is this, 1967 and we don’t trust anyone over 30?

      Where were the younger Republicans? What, Mia Love, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal not young enough for you? Should I assume you would instead trust some twenty-somethings with no life accomplishments instead? What are you on about? Here’s a list of the Democrat speakers for next week. Other than an aging grad student who wants the government to pay for her birth control (Sandra Fluke – a genius choice, to be sure), and Cory Booker (safely back on the plantation now) where are the young people you crave and seem to hold as the benchmark for a proper party?


    • DB says:

      The Telegraph? Don’t make me laugh. Foster, Swaine, Spillius and the other correspondents covering the US election would fit in quite comfortably at the BBC or Guardian. It’s become a schizophrenic newspaper with opinion pieces aimed at traditional readers but a reporting staff that promotes metropolitan liberal received opinion. None of my neighbours get the Telegraph any more – like me, they see it as just another shit rag.


    • Mat says:

      Yesterday upon this thread
      I met a man with no brain in his head
      He is here again today I see
      still sucking up to the BBC !
      To JAH’s puppeteers
      love xxxxx


    • Reed says:

      Really!!! Doug Stanhope at no. 15 on that Ranker.com list of GOP candidate supporters?? There’s no candidate listed next to his name, so I’m sure this must be wrong.


      • Craig says:

        Reed, you’re right to be sceptical about inferring that Stanhope is a GOP supporter.

        He endorsed Ron Paul earlier this year.

        He also said, “…the only one that’s speaking the slightest amount of sense is Ron Paul.”

        …but he’s NOT a Republican:

        “I voted for Paul in the nominations (for 2008). Which is funny, cos it means I’m registered as a Republican somewhere. It’s kinda like coming out of the closet when you’re not really gay. ‘But you’re not Republican!’ I am for this.”

        “In August 2008, Stanhope endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, citing his disappointment with the libertarian candidates and a desire to have “a strong, handsome black man in the White House”, as well as referring to himself as “the head of the one-man Libertarians for Obama group.””

        He says in the end he didn’t actually vote in 2008:
        “The last big election, I was on the road, working, so I didn’t vote. Honestly I couldn’t have cared less.”


    • johnnythefish says:

      ‘These are geriatrics. Where are the younger Republicans?’

      If the US education system is anything like the UK’s, there won’t be any – brainwashed out of existence by a blatantly left-wing education system.

      By the way, don’t recall Viscount Stansgate aka Anthony Wedgewood Benn aka Tony Benn ever being too old for the leftie fantasists to stop creaming their pants over his Marxist Musings.


  11. TPO says:

    I watched it live but didn’t notice the teleprompter that was positioned in front of the empty chair. The whole Eastwood speech was a wonderful, ad-lib piss take.
    Watching the loony left frothing is such a rewarding moment.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Like I said in my main post, I thought his delivery was a bit wobbly. But still, it was funny, mostly coherent, and very, very brave. The anger unleashed by sort of insulting The Obamessiah (and playing as if He was actually swearing and making Him seem petty) is a wonder to behold. What’s best is that it wasn’t done by a sitting or campaigning politician. It’ll be much harder to make this into some kind of albatross to hang around Romney’s neck.


      • London Calling says:

        It is precisely because “Dirty Harry”‘s speech was so on-target the liberal MSM journalists are running in circles in hysteria. Russian oligarch owned London Evening Standard (1.6m free circulation) had hack Joe Murphy dissing his speech as “incoherent, rambling” and quoting opponents as saying ” car crash, sad” They then ran a full page written by a Californian hack from The Salon, an online Hate Republicans site, proclaiming Romney was “driving America to the far Right.”
        What a load of tosh, identical script to the BBC, all orchestrated around liberal left Democrat talking points.
        I don’t think there is a single UK media outlet that isn’t fully signed uo to the “Re-elect Obama at all costs” Programme.


        • Big Ben says:

          Possibly true, luckily none of them have one iota of influence on American voters.


          • London Calling says:

            Sure, no influence on the US outcome, but a litmus test of what they would wish on this country if they had the power. Proxy-wars.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          That Joan Walsh-cum-Ezra Klein piece has been making the rounds over there too, eh? The JournoList lives on in spirit.


          • John Anderson says:


            It was the main opinion piece in the centre-page comment section, editorials down the left side and Salon taking the rest of the page.

            I was falling off my chair last night at the PC, watching Clint on C-Span. Time after time after time he gutted Obama. Fiercer than most of the prepared speeches – he treated Obama and his image with utter disdain.

            “When people don’t do the job, you gotta let them go”



            • David Preiser (USA) says:

              Agreed. Now you put it like that, I see obviously it’s the gutting of His image which hurts the most. That’s all He’s got. And this wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same people who, among other things, had a Bushitler poster on the office wall.


  12. chrisH says:

    I`ve always had a fair bit of time for Clint.
    Those “Dirty Harry”type film said much about the PC seedballs in politics and the media that stopped police from catching criminals, but allowed evil to swamp the “little people”…and many Liberal luvvies will never forgive him for that breaking ranks…like Bronson or Winner for that matter.
    His history is ours…and he`s hated and feared by the luvvies for being consistent in his political take on what`s happening in his country..up to Gran Torino and for as long as he`s with us.
    A true great…and now i`ll watch the clip!


  13. Demon says:

    Not BBC I know, and we don’t have to pay for Sky. I got home last night and switched on Sky to hear the presenter and perma-mouth Bonnie Greer claiming that Eastwood’s speech was bad and embarrasing for the Republicans.

    They didn’t show any of it in the bit of the programme I watched but it was interesting to see the commsnts on here. I will now watch that clip above and make my own mind up.


    • Demon says:

      It was awkward, even a little embarrassing, at first but got a little better. It was not nearly as bad as the left would have you believe nor quite as good as the Republican supporters claim either.

      However, I just hope to see only Republicans debate the merits of next week’s Democrat convention on Sky and the BBC just to show balance.


  14. Craig says:

    Simon Wilson, BBC Washington Bureau Chief, tweeted:

    “This feels really weird in the hall. Wonder what the promised 40 million TV audience make of Clint Eastwood mumbling at a chair. #GOP2012”

    Kate Dailey, Senior magazine writer for the BBC, replied:

    “@siwilso it is also weird from ones living room couch. ”

    Adam Blenford, News editor for BBC News website, Washington DC, joined in:

    “@katedailey @siwilso can confirm ‘tis also weird on bedroom tv”

    Views all theirs, not the BBC’s, naturally!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I’m shocked, shocked to learn that such a large, disorganized, independent news organization with a genetic predisposition to impartiality has its entire US staff in lockstep on this. No memo needs to be passed around, no conspiracy needs stirring. They all think that way naturally. Combine it with Mardell calling it “surreal” and the self-selecting bias is indeed institutional.

      Funny how these media luvvies who usually fawn over politicians who put on a good theatrical display suddenly don’t recognize a stage performance when they see one.


  15. John Anderson says:

    Niall Ferguson’s Newsweek cover-story on Obama was really acid, a good demolition job on the Empty Suit. Apparently there was a big surge in Newsweek sales.

    And now we have the Economist’s jaundiced view on Obama’s dismal record in office. The end of the article suggests that Obama might just retrieve things by proposing more positive and constructive policies for the next 4 years – but that would be a complete reversal of his years of destructive policies – or lack of policies. Hardly likely. The liberal Economist is whistling past the graveyard on this, I fear.


    What is needed is for the received wisdom in more of the media to be – “OK, Obama’s inexperience and his wholly partisan approach really have resulted in a failed Presidency.” The BBC will cling to the wreckage, no doubt – but I love the fun of Newsweek, the Economist and Clint Eastwood together giving the big thumbs down.


  16. John Anderson says:

    Of course the Dems and their BBC supporters didn’t like Clint Eastwood’s performance. (Some of his digs would have gone right over their heads, But the speech has already got 2 million You-Tube hits as well as the people who saw the speech live. The more Mardell and the Dems protest and splutter – the more people will choose to watch it to decide for themselves.

    Clint was attacking stuff that The Bubble does not even know about – like Obama’s disgraceful / hardly legal practice of jetting around on Air Force One to dozens of colleges, using taxpayer money to support his own campaigning.

    Clint Eastwood was pure theatre. The great irony is that he used the typical Saul Alinsky technique – isolate the target, polarise him and then ridicule him.

    He isolated Obama by putting him in the empty chair on the large stage – complete with his trademark teleprompter. It was like James Stewart talking to Harvey the Invisible Rabbit. Or the classic Bob Newhart sketches – talking on stage or by phone to people who weren’t there.

    Obama was not actually in the empty chair – but he was ! And Clint was talking DOWN to him, time after time.

    He made Obama sound like an inept fool, a total failure, a bifurcating lawyer in a job that needs a “stellar” businessman, a hypocrite on issues such as Afghanistan and Gitmo and caring about the environment. And he even challenged the silly notion that Obama is actually a nice guy.


  17. George R says:

    An antidote to Mardell/BBC Democrat’s anti-Romney spin:-

    “The British case for Mitt Romney”

    By Daniel Hannan .



  18. TPO says:

    Judging by Obama’s totally lost and abysmal performance shown here when a teleprompter wasn’t available, the forthcoming debates should be a car crash for him, certain to rival the Ryan/Biden debates.

    One of the most frightening things about Obama is his total reliance on Valerie Jarrett. Some think she IS the president.


    A hint about Jarrett’s communist connections





  19. Jim Dandy says:

    ‘Wake me up when the BBC asks someone from even slightly right of center to write any Viewpoint piece on any topic.’

    Wakey wakey, here’s Rod Dreher’s [ American Conservative] Viewpoint a few days ago



    • Demon says:

      How long did you spend finding that? Honest answer only.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Congratulations, Jim. Well done, I admit defeat.

      It’s my own fault, really, for asking the wrong question. I should have qualified it as asking for a piece espousing Right-wing opinions on the issue at hand. At the risk of being accused of moving the goal posts here, you’ll probably be aware that this is a very hollow victory for you as the piece is entirely apolitical, no Right-wing opinions expressed. I know, I asked only for a piece written by someone not of the Left, so I lose on that score.

      PS: Yes, I remember now that the BBC has previously asked Dreher for a contribution. It was on homosexual marriage, where his admission of defeat for conservatives on the issue was nicely balanced out by a celebration of it written by a Left-wing woman. It was almost as if these were written in response to different questions, really.

      But please, do keep on disproving BBC bias like this.


  20. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I’ve just been informed that it’s more than just Labor Day in the US (the national holiday the BBC made sure to tell you was the day on which the President would deign to grant an audience to the poor people suffering from Hurricane Isaac). It’s National Empty Chair Day:



  21. John Anderson says:

    What’s the difference between Obama and an Empty Chair ?

    The Empty Chair spends all day in the office