Paul Rayon gave a lie to all he said in just the second paragraph of his speech, which of course he delivered without a Teleprompter because, as we all know, Obama could not do without one. Here is the Big Lie, borrowed from David Barton and all those embarked on a systematic brainwashing of Americans into believing, as that fat little turd Gomer Shuckabee once put it, "it's time to interpret the U. S. Constitution according to Christian principles." (America is the only country in the world with a cable news outfit willing to hire a former hick state evangelical governor -- just after Clinton, I might add -- to do a political talk show. The FCC should pull their license or take back any tax breaks or other perks at such blatant mixing of government and the Christian fucking religion.) Put on your night eye-masks so you won't have to see this:
"Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government -- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government."
Does anyone see something wrong with this? No, no, not the awkward syntax, which loses you about where "They are self-evident..." begins. The equation of Judeo-Christian morality with God and our "rights." The use of "nature and God" as code words for fundamentalist teachings including creationism, the idea that all things were createdd at once in six days about six or seven thousand years ago. You might want to discuss as well the total contradiction of an Ayn Rand freak discussing anything called "God." Like the aptly named Rand Paul, the individualist, objectivist atheist of the 40s has become enslaved to myth, irrationality, superstition, and very fuzzy thinking (if you can call it that: there is a move on to ban "critical thinking" from our schools, and guess which political party has or had it in their platform?).
I'll admit, I didn't watch it (and won't), but fact is that Eastwood just lost ANY cred he might have had with me with that stunt. He thinks he has Trouble with the Curve; my guess is that his troubles are just starting.
Oh, I'm sure the ditto-heads at the convention just ate it up, but the fact is that that act is going to wind up getting lampooned and parodied up the ying-yang (and for what I hear, it already IS). Worse, he upstaged Romney on what was supposed to be Mitt's night. NOT horribly smart.
That new movie of Clint's explains why he went on. He probably has his own money invested in the production and needs all the advertising he can get. Guess what? I refuse to go to his %$&#$@ movie. I also think I will avoid it on TV and DVD.
They wouldn't need Romney. A Japanese robot would do.
Among conservatives the current spin is that Eastwood did a fantastic job and that those who don't see it that way are die-hard liberals. I fit in that category, but it still seems a mistake to have a major Hollywood star steal the show from the candidate. Putting him on without vetting his remarks beforehand was idiotic.
Romney has the money to win the election and he promises to create 12 million jobs in his first term. To make such a promise is foolish because it will be almost impossible, but he only cares about this election and not about anything else.
Yet both Romney and Ryan go after Obama for the unkept promises he made during the last election. I would like to see R&R do much of anything should they get into office and have to put up with Harry Reid announcing from the git-go that the job of the Senate Democrats is to see to it Romney is a one term president. The main reason Obama has been able to accomplish so little is that he faced overwhelming obstruction from not only Senate Repubs but the majority of the House as well as "blue dog" Dems in both houses.
As a liberal, I'm of the opinion that Clint Eastwood did a great job. In fact, I would go so far as to say he did a better job than was either expected, or wanted. Let's face it folks. Eastwood is an entertainer. He plays the "tough guy" role. A fantasy role in his movies from the Spaghetti Westerns, to Dirty Harry, to old an old man with an M-1 rifle on his lawn in Grand Torino. And, bear in mind, it's fantasy! The very type of fantasy his audience laps up like a kitten at a bowl of milk.
Now, if you're an entertainer, you're going to play to your audience. Let's say your audience is a group of 7 years olds at a birthday party (not unlike the intellectual level of the RNC delegates). Are you really going to hire Allen Ginsburg to do a reading of "Howl" for them? Of course not. You're going to hire "Chuckles the Clown" and "Zippy The Wonder Pony."
The RNC got Chuckles and Zippy in one package. What I find hilarious is that Zippy upstaged the birthday boy. Everyone remembers Zippy's routine. No one remembers what the birthday boy had to say.
That was precisely the problem: he did what the Romney campaign could not have wanted or expected and upstaged the candidate. His routine is now a classic—for all the wrong reasons.
Considering Clint's Superbowl turn, is it possible he is an old-style Republican and inserted a poison pill into the convention intentionally? That is, he was mocking just what Tea Party types think of Obama, e.g. that he would actually use the expression, "Go fuck yourself!" When they cut from his implied use of the phrase to Ann, she looked dismayed and astonished. She probably was wondering, "do my grandchildren know what he means? Poor Mitt, he's back in the green room listening to this with the grandkids."
Allen Ginsberg is dead.
I know. I was just making a point.