I think Mr. Eastwood perceived this in these simple terms before the rest of us did. His exaggeration of what should have been obvious focused our attention. I think it was intentional. How else do we reconcile what he did at the convention with our knowledge of what he stands for in his films ?
I think he did what he did in order for us to get it!
I said that would never happen, the President was a shoo-in and the media was blowing this subject up to have something dramatic to talk about. Surely I got this last one right. But it was wrong to suppress the conversation. What should be suppressed is scare talk.
We should be talking now, and constantly, about how unexpected differences between “official” results and exit polls demonstrate election fraud. Exit polls, except in extremely close contests, are spectacularly accurate. If, in elections that are not close and expected to go one way, not the other, the “official” results differ enough from the exit polls to turn the election, we should conclude there’s fraud! Probably by voting machine or data base manipulation.
Now’s the time to start:
Before Clint Eastwood said, “If somebody is dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get,” we had to ask, “What’s going on here?”
Now we know: He gave them what they deserved.
Before Mr. Eastwood confirmed our suspicion that he knew exactly what he was doing, we wondered how he could stand up for a man and party whose behavior in recent times, and long before too, flies in the face of everything he stands for in his films.
So before his “dumb enough” remark, we weren’t sure if we wanted to go to the movie. Now we know. We should have “kept the faith!”
So we’re going!
PS. But now we heard, but couldn’t verify, that Mr. Eastwood said he would stump for Mr. Romney. Even if so, this time we’re going to “keep the faith” and go. Perhaps it’s an implied threat!
Isn’t a net just a mesh with holes in it!
Men now favor President Obama by one percentage point over Governor Romney, 48% to 47%, according to a three day CNN | ORC poll taken immediately following the Democratic Convention. Although well within the 3.5% margin of error, it is a whopping improvement over last week’s results: Romney decisively by 12, with 55%.
In last week’s poll the uncommitted were 2%, but are now 5%. Where did 3% of the committed go? Considering the overall trend from last week to now, they went from “Sure about Romney” to “Maybe Obama.”
I think it is a very difficult thing for a man to change his mind about who is a man, a real man, and who is not. Especially since a man’s judgement of other men’s masculinity is so much a reflection of his own, a man finds it particularly hard to admit to himself, “I really can’t tell who the real men are!” A man could only change his mind begrudgingly, and once changed, not change back.
This evolution has likely been brewing for a long time and the Conventions just sealed the deal.
Although men tend to favor Republicans, perhaps Romney just doesn’t impress them as being manly any more, or perhaps he never did and just got the benefit of the doubt. But, everything about President Obama is manly. Always cool, conspicuously so under fire, he can and has taken big risks. He keeps to his positions, we understand changes, and can often sense where he is going before he declares a modified or new position.
This trend will hold and it will grow as the President continues to be the man he is and Governor Romney continues to be the man he is not!
Proof: Governor Romney’s hysterical response to the attacks on us in Egypt and Libya.
