Clint Eastwood

Dixie's wet dream: Palin/Eastwood 2016!

You won't have been here long enough to know this, but the Dix definitely dug the way GWB filled out a pair of jeans, and he loved the look of Spermin' Herman Cain a lot, too...



You don't suppose the Dix is one of those Log Cabin Republicans, do you?
:eek:
 
You won't have been here long enough to know this, but the Dix definitely dug the way GWB filled out a pair of jeans, and he loved the look of Spermin' Herman Cain a lot, too...



You don't suppose the Dix is one of those Log Cabin Republicans, do you?
:eek:

Please.

Don't.



 
Hey, Clint...


image.jpg

Apparently Clint hit the mark and got under Black Hussein Maobama's skin. If Maobama had any class, he would just shake it off. But, it obviously got to him. The classless kenyan prick
 
Okay, I just watched Clint's speech in its entirety.

What a painful spectacle. I guess they wanted to make sure Mitt's speech would come off as 'electrifying' and putting the doddering, stammering, geriatric has-been ensured Captain MagicUndies wouldn't be upstaged, maybe?

Trouble is, no one's even talking about Mitt's speech today. It's all about the old man talking to the chair.

:rofl2:
 
For a speaker that so many are saying was ineffectual and of no consequence, he sure seems to have grabbed the attention of many of the Liberal Left Loony Moonbats.
This leads me to consider that it's just possible his speech was of more consequence then they want to admit. :D
 
Last edited:
Okay, I just watched Clint's speech in its entirety.

What a painful spectacle. I guess they wanted to make sure Mitt's speech would come off as 'electrifying' and putting the doddering, stammering, geriatric has-been ensured Captain MagicUndies wouldn't be upstaged, maybe?

Trouble is, no one's even talking about Mitt's speech today. It's all about the old man talking to the chair.

:rofl2:

I'm really surprised there's not a single thread from a conservative devoted to how great Romney's speech was. We talked about Ann, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan, and there's zip about Mitt.
 
I'm really surprised there's not a single thread from a conservative devoted to how great Romney's speech was. We talked about Ann, Chris Christie and Paul Ryan, and there's zip about Mitt.
I'll speak about it. For Romney, I thought he did a pretty good job. We all know he's not a very charismatic speaker. He is no Obama, Clinton, or Reagan. But compared to other speeches of his I thought he did alright. Now how a truly independent undecided voter would view his speech I don't know. I am to partisan to be able to determine that.
 
I'll speak about it. For Romney, I thought he did a pretty good job. We all know he's not a very charismatic speaker. He is no Obama, Clinton, or Reagan. But compared to other speeches of his I thought he did alright. Now how a truly independent undecided voter would view his speech I don't know. I am to partisan to be able to determine that.

In other words, he sucked.

That's why no one's talking about it.

:rofl2:
 
In other words, he sucked.

That's why no one's talking about it.

:rofl2:

I don't think he sucked. Just because one isn't a great speaker does not mean that they therefore must suck. I don't believe he brings a lot of excitement though to Republicans.
 
I
I don't think he sucked. Just because one isn't a great speaker does not mean that they therefore must suck. I don't believe he brings a lot of excitement though to Republicans.

Cawacko, he embarrassed himself. He wasn't just a bad speaker, he was crass. If the Republicans were excited by this it shows just how low they can go. Ann Romney thought airing the short film on Romney would have been better, she thanked Eastwood for his support, but she was not happy with the putcome. if they had shown the film instead of letting Eastwood do his stichk, we would be talking Romney today instead of Eastwood! They didn't even bother to ask Eastwood what he was going to do, they just let him do it and now, they have egg on their face and a lost opportunity.
 
I

Cawacko, he embarrassed himself. He wasn't just a bad speaker, he was crass. If the Republicans were excited by this it shows just how low they can go. Ann Romney thought airing the short film on Romney would have been better, she thanked Eastwood for his support, but she was not happy with the putcome. if they had shown the film instead of letting Eastwood do his stichk, we would be talking Romney today instead of Eastwood! They didn't even bother to ask Eastwood what he was going to do, they just let him do it and now, they have egg on their face and a lost opportunity.

I was talking about Romney's speech not Eastwood
 
in fairness, I do think mitts speech was pretty good, in terms of politicking. I routinely watch msnbc almost exclusively during this type of stuff because I like getting their perspective, and while they mostly all usually shit over everything at the RNC, even they conceded his speech was good. Lawrence o donnel, maddow, chris matthews, all said it was the best speech they've ever heard from him. Even al sharpton thought it was good in terms of measuring oratory.

Yes that's anecdotal, but I think they are usually a good barometer, if they say something was from the republicans was good, there is a good chance it was.

One key theme I think we are going to keep hearing over and over (and something that was effectively done last night) is the romney campaign attacking obama, without "really" attacking him. By that I mean, republican focus groups have found that the most effective line against the president is dealing with the frustation of voters that voted for him last time. Honing in on those that were hopeful, and expected progress and "change" and are left holding an empty sack.

There has been an ad running in swing states to this affect and it's really becoming one of the overarching lines of attack

There is a decent article over at businessinsider expanding on this:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-31/exclusive-inside-karl-roves-billionaire-fundraiser

Basically a journalist got access to rove's super pac and documented what was said.

“The people we’ve got to win in this election, by and large, voted for Barack Obama,” Rove said, in a soothing, professorial tone, explaining why the campaign hadn’t launched more pointed attacks on the president’s character.


What had emerged from that data is an “acute understanding of the nature of those undecided, persuadable” voters. “If you say he’s a socialist, they’ll go to defend him. If you call him a ‘far out left-winger,’ they’ll say, ‘no, no, he’s not.’” The proper strategy, Rove declared, was criticizing Obama without really criticizing him—by reminding voters of what the president said that he was going to do and comparing it to what he’s actually done. “If you keep it focused on the facts and adopt a respectful tone, then they’re gonna agree with you.”


The one odd thing though was the iran stuff. It's one thing to talk about iran, but it's another thing to close your speech out with it. I don't think that plays well with independents, so that part was a little bizarre for me

 
in fairness, I do think mitts speech was pretty good, in terms of politicking. I routinely watch msnbc almost exclusively during this type of stuff because I like getting their perspective, and while they mostly all usually shit over everything at the RNC, even they conceded his speech was good. Lawrence o donnel, maddow, chris matthews, all said it was the best speech they've ever heard from him. Even al sharpton thought it was good in terms of measuring oratory.

Yes that's anecdotal, but I think they are usually a good barometer, if they say something was from the republicans was good, there is a good chance it was.

One key theme I think we are going to keep hearing over and over (and something that was effectively done last night) is the romney campaign attacking obama, without "really" attacking him. By that I mean, republican focus groups have found that the most effective line against the president is dealing with the frustation of voters that voted for him last time. Honing in on those that were hopeful, and expected progress and "change" and are left holding an empty sack.

There has been an ad running in swing states to this affect and it's really becoming one of the overarching lines of attack

There is a decent article over at businessinsider expanding on this:

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ncy? Was he channelingReagan at that point!?
 
I was talking about Romney's speech not Eastwood

Sorry, I was on my iPhone because wifi was acting up for iPad and I missed the exchange between Bijou and yourself, my bad.

Romney kind of went off when he spoke about Russia!
 
Sorry, I was on my iPhone because wifi was acting up for iPad and I missed the exchange between Bijou and yourself, my bad.

Romney kind of went off when he spoke about Russia!

No worries. I'm actually on my iPhone as well. Driving down I five through Central California. Hard to get a much Worse Dr., Vanness. This board is my only entertainment.
 
Back
Top