Too Handsome to be Governor
The long wait is over, and President Obama can start packing his bags. Clint Eastwood has endorsed Governor Romney, and that, as they say, is that.
Since the 2012 Superbowl, there had been speculation that the actor famous for playing Dirty Harry and The Man With No Name might actually come out for Obama. In the famous Chrysler ad, Eastwood had read the lines, “This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again, and when we do the world’s gonna hear the roar of our engines.”
At the time, some pundits interpreted the commercial as an endorsement of the Obama administration's policies, which included a bail-out of America's automobile companies. But Eastwood, an actor who has played against an Orangutan in two celebrated films, has ended the speculation. Addressing the crowd at a Romney fund-raiser, Eastwood--the actor who promoted family values by playing a vice cop addicted to sex--eloquently proclaimed, according to a report on the BBC, "the country needs a boost somewhere."
Eastwood recalled that he had first become aware of the candidate when he was shooting a movie in Massachusetts. "God, this guy," he thought to himself, "he's too handsome to be governor. But it does look like he could be President."
Out of the horse's mouth!
A notorious womanizer, according to his biographer Patrick McGilligan, Eastwood is said to have fathered seven children by five separate women. He had a fourteen year "relationship" with the insufferable Sondra Locke and apparently bought a house for her allegedly homosexual husband. Locke claims she had two abortions during this time, both at Eastwood's request.
Yes, in the new America, abortion, adultery, and homosexuality are all legal, but what a mess he has made of his life! In a long life I have known a lot of strange degenerates, but Eastwood, even by Hollywood standards, is in a class by himself And what was the response of the upright Mormon to Eastwood's endorsement?
"He just made my day. What a guy."
It is a little unfair to pick on Romney for accepting the support of one of Hollywood's few Republicans. (Interestingly, some of the others are also action heroes: Bruce Willis, Arnold Scharzenneger, Chuck Norris.) Most of the big Hollywood money is, after all, backing Obama, even in spite of their doubts about his loyalty to Israel.
Still, it's a quaint world, when powerful men turn for support to people who pretend to be the men they are not. Actresses who play farmwives testify in Congress on the farm crisis, and Robert "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV" Young made commencement addresses at med schools. There was a time when actors were not respectable people, much less heroes whose every word was reported in the press.
Are Obama and Romney sincere in their protestations of affection and respect for the Hollywood riffraff who raise money for them? I don't know. The question itself is absurd. There is nothing serious or sincere about American politicians. Small wonder that actors have been elected governor and even in one memorable instance President.
From time to time, the American press is abuzz with the rumor that Robert Redford or Warren Beatty is about to run for office. Why not? Why not cut out all the amateur actors who do such a poor job of playing politicians on television and hire a real actor for a change. Let me be the first to say it:
"In 2016, vote for Charlie Sheen."
Entries(RSS)
To anticipate questions, let me just say that I pulled this piece from the Daily Mail after 1) complying with a polite request to document my characterization of Eastwood's erotic career (for which I was thanked), and 2) receiving a snippy note from an acting editor who, without asking for information, put the piece into draft mode because A) He had questions about the Eastwood material and B) was "also not clear about the points being made in the following sentences:
“Yes, in the new America, abortion, adultery, and homosexuality are all legal, but what a mess he has made of his life!”
And
"At the time, some pundits interpreted the commercial as an endorsement of the Obama administration's policies, which included a bail-out of America's automobile companies. But Eastwood, an actor who has played against an Orangutan in two celebrated films, has ended the speculation."
I replied politely that the legal issues had been already addressed and that one of us was devoid of a sense of humor. This would not have happened had the editor been in the office. Alas, you just can't good help these days.
Is it bad form to re-post a comment that never got posted in the first place? At the risk of being tacky, here goes:
"Why not cut out all the amateur actors who do such a poor job of playing politicians on television and hire a real actor for a change."
Along these lines, I recommend a movie with documentary-like accuracy on this very topic. Is anyone up for some "Duck Soup"?
-BT-
"There was a time when actors were not respectable people, much less heroes whose every word was reported in the press."
Speaking of acting with the apes, my wife and I recently watched an old episode of Groucho's "You Bet Your Life" starring none other than Johnny Weissmuller! I was surprised to see the former and much older matinee idol wearing a cheesy suit and talking about his new job hawking swimming pools. I guess this was the olden day equivalent of people like Ralph Macchio showing up on "Dancing with the Stars." It was quite a sight to see the King of the Apes stand there and be the butt of Groucho's jokes, and, yes, Groucho made him do the yell. Twice even! In the long run, though, Mr. Weissmuller's five wives pales in comparison to Clint's dalliances. Not all actors are treated with respect - I guess one can still hope that we will someday see an aged George Clooney hawking Sham-Wow in the wee hours of cable infomercials.
Since Dr. Fleming mentioned in the original Daily Mail piece that he enjoyed some of Clint Eastwood's movies, I note that he is starring in a new movie (which he is not directing) about a baseball scout - Trouble with the Curve. Alas that boy Justin Timberlake has a minor role in it.
All I can say is that if your love your son or daughter and want them to save their souls for eternity, discourage them from entering the acting or political professions. People like Obama and Romney validate Shakespeare quote that 'All the world's a stage'. Both are terrible politicans and worse actors.
9 out of 10 men in amerika today have never separated *emotionally from their mothers. no male has an actual conscience in real terms until that separation has occurred. so instinctively in that vacuum women try their hand at wearing the pants which nets out as pathetic. manhood is truncated subsequently in the metaphoric exclusively, as a function merely of 'words' as if they were the whole reality. clint's apparently no different in being one of the 9. all the rest of it is symptoms, subsequent confusion, a frail, hollow sense of identity. bombs become anchors ready to blow us all to kingdom come; otherwise the wind would pass over us of the judeo*christian culture now (sadly our pagans included) and we'd be gone. clint's recent brave 'words' not withstanding. the flaw of being a so-called sex addict, if that's what he is or was is symptomatic. the cause is so much deeper it's the type thing you can't even root-up culturally. if we survive ourselves culturally it's the sort of flaw that just without much fanfare disappears in time. in the meantime, batten down the hatches. fortunately although it's very sad, it's at least also funny. ha ha. i agree, keep a sense of humor too.
Who is Robert Duvall supporting ? He is one of my favorite Hollywood figures. Sure, he has attempted marriage four times but sure can act and knows the differerence between acting and immitating.
I've come up with a pretty sound actor-based political philosophy. I do everything I can to find out what Matt Damon thinks on any given issue and then support the opposite. If you can't get a hold of Matt Damon, Sean Penn will do as a back-up.
On a related note, actors aren't the only people the modern media has exalted beyond their competence. Take sports stars as another example. With press conference after press conference, now even with atheletes at the High School level, how many times do we have to hear either inane trash talking or "We're just going to go out there and give it our best . . ." before we figure out that there's nothing really that they have to say worth listening to? If you're a ball player, then play ball!
Of course, then there's CEOs as well. With all respect to Dan Cathy (and, if I have to go to a fast food place I try to make it Chik-Fil-A if for nothing else than they actually try to play decent music over the speaker system), his competence is in business and not natural law theology/philosophy. The same goes for the CEO of Home Depot, Google, and Amazon. Who cares what they think about social issues?
But, as Dr. Fleming points out, the politicans themselves are no more competent to speak on any of these issues than any of the aforementioned. Neither Romney nor Obama have studied the history of marriage the way Dr. Fleming has. Romney's "Pro-Life" position is based on about as much scientific fact and philosophic theory as Obama's "Pro Choice" position.
What's the lowest common denominator? $$$,$$$,$$$ That's what diffrentiates between competent and not-worth-listening to.
As with all things, these are just the indicators of society at large. Obviously these incompetent celebrities wouldn't blabber about these issues if we didn't want to hear them so badly. Even the people who hate Rosie O'Donnel tuned in to watch her on The View. I don't know what one calls it - A.D.D., media obsessed, soulless, distracted . . .etc. But whatever it's called, it's not a good thing.
So if societies get the leaders they deserve, why not Charlie Sheen? Then we can have a First Lady selected on the all-important criteria of how long her middle toes are. Who am I kidding? There would be a Second Lady, then a Third, then a Fourth . . .etc. Again, with American Divorce rate as high as it is, perhaps this is the right fit after all.
"What's the lowest common denominator? $$$,$$$,$$$ That's what diffrentiates between competent and not-worth-listening to."
Yes, three years ago a man who could care less about who wins these contests, told me to buy some obscure television stock in Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Said there would be more money spent on advertising with these stations than ever before and that the smart money was already picking some radio and television spots to take advanatge of 2.1 billion that would be spent. It has worked out really well for him and not bad for me on % return although large percents of a little is not much where as large percents of alot is huge.
I would hope that Mr. Duval would prefer not to comment on the election. He is a friend of a friend of mine who would never vote for Obama. A semi-conservative director once told me that he had made a picture with Bruce Willis without ever learning that Willis was a Republican. He observed that it just wasn't wise to talk about politics in Hollywood. What I think he really meant was that it was not wise to confess to being anything other than a leftist pro-gay Zionist.
I don't know much about first ladies. I sort of admired Pat Nixon for keeping her own counsel and loathed Betty Ford and Roslyn Carter for shooting their mouths off. Laura Bush seemed, for the most part, a decent normal woman, though one has to question her taste in mates. Mrs. Romney strikes me as well above the average: attractive, ladylike, and somewhat reticent. Naturally, she has to campaign, but what a contrast with the unbearable Mrs. O.
A friend, the other day, asked me about the Obama kids song where they are supposed to chant umh umh umh--as parodied by Rush Limbaugh. I recall it as pretty common exclamation among Southern black people, immortalized by the great Mantan Moreland as Birmingham in the Charlie Chan movies. By the way, I must confess that I still enjoy Charlie Chan and Hopalong Cassidy films, which I find infinitely better written and more intelligent than most films today. I watch them with my 10 year old granddaughter who commented, "Sometimes Hoppy is great, sometimes just good, but he never disappoints." I don't recall Hoppy ever commenting on politics, though politicians in his films are often portrayed as corrupt--as in The Devil's Playground. His only failure was a rather moralistic disapproval of alcohol.
Interestingly, William Boyd had his career as mainstream filmstar ruined by reports of drinking and gambling, though--and what a surprise--the newspapers had the wrong William Boyd.
At some point, can we do a story or comment section about good movies/shows to watch with the kids? I've been mining the comedy classics (Buster Keaton, Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Stan & Ollie), the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes, John Ford Westerns, and some of the older Disney stuff (only the stuff I can tolerate to watch myself), but I know folks here could give me lots of great recommendations and save time and money from my family entertainment safari. Perhaps an Audtodidact's watching list?
"But Eastwood, an actor who has played against an Orangutan in two celebrated films"
I actually liked "Any Which Way You Can" which I saw as a kid. (Not sure how I got that one by my parents.)
Anyway, "A notorious womanizer, according to his biographer Patrick McGilligan, Eastwood is said to have fathered seven children by five separate women."
I'm not making excuses for Mr. Eastwood's behavior, especially if the abortion allegations are true, but I think this is as much a problem with our culture of celebrity as it is a problem with the character of any individual actor. It is said that a man is as faithful as his options, and while this is not always true there is much truth to it. With women throwing themselves at your feet, I suspect it is the exceptional moral man who manages to avoid such temptation. This is true of actors, sports stars, celebrity politicians, etc.
I am trying to see Red's point. Is it that we don't hold people accountable for their behavior if they have had opportunities to go bad, as in don't encourage a good boy to go bad by leaving your keys in the car? If the allegations against Eastwood are true, then he is despicable, not because he cheated on his wife, but because he treated human beings like erotic milking machines, renting an apartment to make it easier to enjoy his "nooners" with strange women. Besides, my point was not to condemn him but to ask why anyone should be interested in his political opinions? That was also the point of my reference to his orangutan movies, which I also enjoyed, though I did find Clyde more attractive than Ms Locke.
If the allegations against Eastwood are true, then he is despicable, not because he cheated on his wife, but because he treated human beings like erotic milking machines, renting an apartment to make it easier to enjoy his "nooners" with strange women.
On this side of the pond that sort of thing is expected of if not accepted (even, it seems sometimes, celebrated) in the highest echelons of the ruling class.
But that has been the case in most societies, has it not? If so, then the fact that Americans more readily tolerate it of our celebrities than of our presidents may be yet another argument that it is, in fact, Hollywood that holds the real power in America.
Besides, my point was not to condemn him but to ask why anyone should be interested in his political opinions?
Their electoral opinions are less important than their philosophical outlooks. The one that Eastwood disseminates through such award-winning nihilistic trope as Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby is quite telling. If American art both reflects and shapes Americana, as they arguably do, it is no wonder "suburban nerds" are going "postal," as you put it a while back in reference to these crazed unfocused shoot-er-up types.
I don't know how one would go about assessing the degree of satyriasis found in all ruling classes. Besides, Eastwood's position is not that of a Medieval robber baron but of the robber baron's jester or dwarf. Men with easy access to women typically do take advantage, but few men with real jobs to do can afford to be dedicated skirt-chasers. Danton is probably an exception, though he did lose out in a power struggle with a man of greater self-discipline. This sort of obsession is not just indecent, it is unmanly. Men have wars to fight, businesses to build, inventions to make, poems to compose, and too much dalliance is a distraction. I am not moralizing, only observing.
I don't know how one would go about assessing the degree of satyriasis found in all ruling classes.
Well, there's plenty of historical evidence, at least in France and the U.S.. One can count on one hand the number of French heads of state who have NOT cheated on their wives (there's Louis IX, Louis XVI and I think one more Louis apart from pretenders - I used to think Charles de Gaulle, as well, but I have been told otherwise). In the U.S. it was quite taboo to talk about the subject prior to the courtroom gaffe of Bill Clinton, but from what I gather presidential adultery was pretty well the norm at least throughout the twentieth century.
Besides, Eastwood's position is not that of a Medieval robber baron but of the robber baron's jester or dwarf.
From a titular standpoint, yes, no doubt. But here's the thing: did the antics of robber baron's jesters ever become so public as the private lives of Hollywood starlets are today?
Men have wars to fight, businesses to build, inventions to make, poems to compose, and too much dalliance is a distraction.
Yes, true, but what exactly is "too much"? For the Christian the answer should be obvious, and there is little we can do about our neighbors, but when it comes to public figures who have a duty to think about something other than their own physical pleasure, how much should we tolerate before it gets out of hand? It isn't a question of moralizing so much as looking out for the interests of the state and the populace. Or is there no clear defining line and it becomes a question of "once duty is shirked, something has to be done"?
I do not say that there are not limits, but in Eastwood's case I am tempted to ask whether it would not have been better for society had he slept around a little bit more rather than making Million Dollar Baby (and Mystic River)... and, for that matter, keep his mouth shut when it comes to politics.
I realize that last observation might ascribe to Eastwood more importance than he is worth. But part of the point of my rather cheeky comment that as the embodiment of the prevailing American mood, both as trendsetter and as reflection, Hollywood is at the least no less appropriate a head-of-state than is the current president.
The attitude shown in misters Phillips' and Moses' comments above is similar to the "root causes" argument/excuse offered for non-white minority mischief. "Everyone does it", "the temptations were too great", and "poverty made them do it" are branches of the same tree.
While it's true that the cause-effect relationship between Hollywood's production of debauchery on film and the public's demand for it is blurred, a presidential candidate who publicly declared that he did not want the endorsement of a serial adulterer would be progress. Many people want to see public figures held to the same standards as the rest of us, but need some cover to protect them from those who will label them moralizers.
The attitude shown in misters Phillips' and Moses' comments above is similar to the "root causes" argument/excuse offered for non-white minority mischief. "Everyone does it", "the temptations were too great", and "poverty made them do it" are branches of the same tree.
To clarify, I was not arguing "for" or excusing Eastwood's behavior. In my first post I was simply making a dry observation: that Hollywood is as much and as effective a national unifying symbol as, perhaps even more so than, is any president (this is a wholly negative development, obviously), and that Eastwood's behavior, while despicable, is hardly without precedent so far as ruling classes go. (Of course, Obama is arguably one of their own, so this may be a moot point by now.)
a presidential candidate who publicly declared that he did not want the endorsement of a serial adulterer would be progress
Exactly how far are we supposed to take this? Obviously, a Marquis de Sade (or in our time, a Hugh Hefner) would be out of the question. But should Francis II not have made Metternich State Chancellor because of this latter's egregious affairs? Should the Christian princes of Europe have refused Metternich's aide in the Holy Alliance against the Jacobins, Bonapartists and other revolutionaries?
I know there were serious problems in the counter-revolution and I certainly know that Eastwood is no Metternich. But this gets back to what I was saying: that Hollywood is as much the pallbearer of cultural power in contemporary America and a figurehead of the country as the Church and the king respectively were in former times. So not surprisingly, like many fallen men who attain power, they attempt to shirk certain rules because their privileges insulate them from many of the immediate repercussions of their misdeeds (which only come back to bite them later on).
One major difference, of course, is that contemporary cultural elites do not just shirk the rules: they attempt to deny that such rules exist or should exist. And there are many reasons why the present political and cultural apparatus is hopelessly rotten.
This is what I wanted to convey, and what I did not properly convey. If his goal is to be elected *this year*, Mitt Romney would be as foolish to repudiate Eastwood's endorsement as Russia would have been to repudiate Metternich. Criticizing Romney for accepting to play a dirty game the standard dirty way is a little like targeting one cancer cell in a case of metastasis.
Many people want to see public figures held to the same standards as the rest of us, but need some cover to protect them from those who will label them moralizers.
Buchanan and even more so Paul - the only truly decent men to have run for President on major party tickets in recent decades - lost their election campaigns arguably because they held a standard that is increasingly alien to the American electorate. I don't spend much time with people your age and so I can't tell there, but I can tell you that on the whole my generation is quite indifferent to Eastwoodian-type behavior.
Romney might well set an example and go a way in reversing this trend by taking a stand, but that would quite possibly mean losing the election. Because, let's face it: we live in a time where Hollywood actors become governors and presidents. How can the place NOT steer electoral politics? (I do acknowledge even if Romney did lose in that case, the stand may still be for the better... IF it is a stand against Hollywood culture and its effect on American life and society and not just about one adulterer most of whose works would be forgotten in a halfway tolerable civilization. However, what we would like to happen and what we can reasonably expect [not that we don't have a right to read out the rotten even if it is "expected"] are two different things.)
Mr. Moses,
I recognized that you were not endorsing the behavior; still, I thought the unacceptability, ultimately the untenability, of accepting the "precedent" of this kind of badness needed emphasizing.
While I see the point that merely a one-time rejection of a tainted figure is hardly going to win the war, it has to start somewhere, and, like the Amiens (how pathetic is it that this site is now another locus of the ongoing humiliation of France!) offensive in the Great War, one great shock can be a tide-turning demoralizer for the enemy. And I surely meant for the rejection of Eastwood to include a wholesale rejection of the whole Hollywood/Las Vegas/New York axis of debauchery. And to be sure, throw in Hefner. OK, you don't spend much time with people my age – thanks a lot! – but there was an old joke that went "I only bought the magazine to read the articles", which you were supposed to offer as an excuse if caught with a copy of Playboy. Incredible as it sounds, in the pre-internet era this was actually funny – but, to my long-lasting intellectual and spiritual impairment, I actually did read them.
Actually, Eastwood may be closer to Metternich than you think. He's a wily player, able to function on many levels: politician, clown, hero, passing himself off as the essence of male toughness while all the time being a secret acolyte of the pajama-clad one. And a gentile carving out his own power base on the turf of the wiliest, most ferocious competitors on earth, our friends the chosen ones? Pretty impressive, I'd say, and a surprise, hard rebuke by a national figure of him and his backers would be a stunning blow. So no, I don't think "Criticizing Romney for accepting to play a dirty game the standard dirty way is a little like targeting one cancer cell in a case of metastasis." I think an opportunity for a bold, invasive operation has been lost. This is necessary precisely because, in your words, ... "on the whole my generation is quite indifferent to Eastwoodian-type behavior." So let's wake them up!
If I may be allowed to compliment you on something you wrote on another site, I applaud the stand you took on the Amcon thread under the article on unwed motherhood. Excellent job of keeping your head and continuing to score telling points under very hostile conditions! Linking the poster who recommended castration to his eugenicist roots was my favorite – and it is powerfully true.
What really gets under my skin about this whole scenario is not that Romney accepted Eastwood's endorsement vice repudiating his behavior, but that Romney fawned over Eastwood like some nerd getting excited that the Varsity Quarterback knows his name. What was Romney's response? "You just made my day." GAH! How idiotic! How cheesy! How disgusting!
But, then, Romney is only following a long standing tradition that says all public figures must be willing to do whatever it takes to seem "cool". Since Dirty Harry is "cool" then I must bow to Dirty Harry and ape his lines. John McCain on SNL, Letterman, heck, even the stupid Jimmy Fallon show. Sarah Palin doing a gangsta rap. Clinton playing his saxophone on Arsenio Hall. Obama on the View, and, yes, even the stupid Jimmy Fallon show (where he was announced as the "POTUS with the Mostest"). Political candidates stooping to go on John Stewart's "cool" show or Colbert's where they have to subject themselves to one-sided mockery. Even the mandatory willingness of the President to annually mock himself at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner.
1. - Nothing is as sickening as watching "old" people try to be hip.
2. - Nothing is as embarrassing as watching powerful leaders with serious problems before them act the fool before the world. Someone wake me when the grown-ups finally show up.
3. - Nothing is as irritating as someone without wit trying to be witty. It's like watching the characters from a Christopher Guest mockumentary only more painful.
I recognized that you were not endorsing the behavior; still, I thought the unacceptability, ultimately the untenability, of accepting the "precedent" of this kind of badness needed emphasizing.
I'm walking a fine like, I know, and I definitely see eye-to-eye with you on the lost opportunity bit. However, what I was reacting to was the idea the Romney might repudiate Eastwood's endorsement on the specific grounds of Eastwood being an adulterer. I think that in general such a move would be pulling teeth... and strikes me as just slightly Puritan. If the adultery is truly scandalous - as it undoubtedly is in this case - , I would suggest gratefully acknowledging the endorsement and perhaps make some very public remarks disparaging adultery in general pretty soon afterwards. That said, I still believe that while there are many wicked things that are more common than they used to be, it is not at all clear that adultery is one of them, and that adultery in major figures is not a particularly egregious "sign of the decadence of our times" but a generally age-old vice that in practice can be at best tempered. (As Catholic a man as Saint Augustine vehemently opposed outlawing brothels for fear of giving the whole world over to lust or worse.)
Now, even in a country where divorce is not permitted, there certainly are cases when adultery in high-up places becomes a problem for more than just the happiness of a marriage. Louis XV's affair with the Marquise de Pompadour is an example of a bridge too far: the Marquise's influence at court and her vendetta against the Jesuits may have been the straw that destroyed the French monarchy. The first problem was that she remained at Versailles at all: their affair had been so notorious that the king's confessor would not absolve them so long as she remained in his court, even long after the bedding had ended. Thus Louis XV spent a number of years in a state of sin and unable to give the curative Eastertide "royal touch," thereby damaging the sacred reputation of the crown right at the moment when Catholicism was under vicious attack by the self-appointed philosophes. Then, slighted by her confessor, Pompadour turned against the dévotistes and helped stir up anti-Jesuit sentiment; the disbanding that followed was a major victory for the Jansenist-Gallican parties and by extension for their intellectual cousins the philosophes. But even here, the appropriate response would have been not to repudiate Louis XV for a less adulterous head-of-state, but for a powerful and morally upright friend to conspire to remove Pompadour pre-emptively from Versailles (by moral means, of course; I am not advocating assassination!)
OF COURSE... this is all irrelevant to this particular case, because Eastwood or pretty much any Hollywood figure meddling in politics is a scandal quite apart from their bedroom behavior, and you are right: a presidential candidate who was willing to denounce the celebrity mania of modern American life and take Hollywood front on would be quite a breath of fresh air.
OK, you don't spend much time with people my age – thanks a lot!
Sorry about that! If it makes you feel better, I'm getting fat.
but there was an old joke that went "I only bought the magazine to read the articles", which you were supposed to offer as an excuse if caught with a copy of Playboy. Incredible as it sounds, in the pre-internet era this was actually funny – but, to my long-lasting intellectual and spiritual impairment, I actually did read them.
I do actually remember that joke. There's an interesting irony to that excuse, though, which is that anyone who knows what Playboy is about would likely agree that the articles are far more damaging than the porno pictures. I went out on a limb and suggested that Penthouse was less offensive than Playboy. (I might not be happy to find my son reading either one, but the conversation that would ensue if it were this latter would be rather different.) Not that the makers of either one have their place in polite company, of course, and the fact that such a 'serious' (in the modern world, at least) political commentator as Ann Coulter could date Bob Guccione, Jr. with no fallout is a sign that there is something deeply wrong with our upper class, as Vince Cornell suggests...
1. - Nothing is as sickening as watching "old" people try to be hip.
2. - Nothing is as embarrassing as watching powerful leaders with serious problems before them act the fool before the world. Someone wake me when the grown-ups finally show up.
3. - Nothing is as irritating as someone without wit trying to be witty. It's like watching the characters from a Christopher Guest mockumentary only more painful.
Nothing to add.
If I may be allowed to compliment you on something you wrote on another site, I applaud the stand you took on the Amcon thread under the article on unwed motherhood. Excellent job of keeping your head and continuing to score telling points under very hostile conditions! Linking the poster who recommended castration to his eugenicist roots was my favorite – and it is powerfully true.
Thank you kindly. I went in there to check out something by a friend and was nailed to a computer on a boring day, so I just tackled a couple of the discussion threads in there before going beck to being a non-regular reader of TAC.
I believe you gentlemen have stumbled upon an important topic in our time, which is where is one to draw the line? Luckily, life is more mysterious than clear.
I have not followed the Eastwood endorsement in media, but I assume it went the way any endorsement would go. Trumpets. Smoke. Next.
It would be one thing if Romney, the "Mormon", picked Eastwood to be his vice candidate, it's another to not actively reject the words of an actor. It is like worrying over Oprah.
In an odd coincidence, my wife and I have been watching some average Eastwood flics over the weekend since we do not have cable anymore and our netflix connection (a physical cable) recently broke. A four-movie dvd set, previously forgotten, has made its way to our ridiculously sized TV. So far, we've seen Play Misty for Me, The Beguiled and The Eiger Sanction, all movies that showcase Eastwood's love for his own sexual machismo and poor direction (glad to say I think his directing has significantly improved over the years, Unforgiven was a good movie). In any case, the surroundings of the late 60s through mid 70s must have been a slaughterhouse to the most modest of men. If a young Brenda Venus had walked through my door, I shudder to think how quickly I might have exited politics and stuck to endorsements.
If there is a reason to vote for Romney, Eastwood is not it. If there is a reason not to vote for Romney, Eastwood is not it either.