That Just Happened

Having Clint Eastwood as Mitt Romney’s “surprise” lead-in speaker at the RNC should’ve been a slam-dunk: Dirty Harry walks out onstage and lays down some gravely platitudes (ideally ones that ignore Mr. Eastwood happening to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) while the assembled crowd basks in the glow of just about the ONLY remotely-relevant right-wing actor who isn’t a walking joke – or, rather, wasn’t one yet..
Just one small problem. Apparently, Clint decided to ad-lib… and nobody (understandably) had the guts to tell him “no.”

So, the night that was supposed to be all about introducing Mitt Romney to America… instead became all about an 82 year-old man performing a rambling, nigh-incoherent ventriloquism routine in which he conversed with an empty chair representing “Invisible Obama.” Social media (re: “The Twittersphere”) lit up immediately as the slow-motion train wreck unfolded… and even the Official Obama Twitter got in on the act…

The video is below. I warn you, it’s cringe inducing. No, not because it’s a Republican thing – it would be just as embarassing if, say, Michael Douglas did this at the DNC next week – because it’s just awful all-around, an all-time low and probably the most embarassing thing Eastwood has ever been associated with. Ugh, what a shame.

33 thoughts on “That Just Happened

  1. lordoffaceplam says:

    O_O… did I just see that? No seriously, If you told me just a few moments ago that The Man With No Name did a god-awful ventriloquism routine with a chair in front on national TV I would have called bullshit, but no… that was real. Guys I have not had such a big “WTF did I just watch” moment since the toothbrush scene in Nisemonogatari! So I guess that Clint is joining the ranks of Tom Cruse and Mel Brooks in “crazy-ass-fuck actors” now.


  2. Aiddon says:

    I'm not going to touch that. The last thing I need is seeing Clint as incoherent when I have such fond memories of him as the man who nearly every badass in the last FIFTY+ has in their DNA in some form.


  3. ANImaniac says:

    Is it kinda weird that I now wish Eastwood was running for office, I mean Jesus Christ imagine what that kind of batshit crazy could do for this country.

    No one would ever mess with us again.


  4. Furore says:

    Hear that, Joshua the Anarchist? You're a sock puppet now. Better cancel your show on Reviewtopia and the Agony Booth, they only have room for one puppet and that's Phil the Bunny.


  5. Muthsarah says:

    There's the new Reagan! He's old, he's an actor, he has Alzheimer's. Put Clint on the ballot, there's no way he wouldn't get more votes.

    Oh right, he's far too liberal. Just like Reagan.


  6. Anonymous says:

    Hey Bob, when are you going to grow a pair and acknowledge that Obama has been a disaster regarding civil liberties (NDAA, Patriot Act, war on drugs), military action (troop surge, drone strikes, kill list), and so many other areas? I know you hate Romney; I don't want him to win either. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. Wise up, Chipman.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Joshua The Anarchist is a reviewer on The Agony Booth? I used to love their reviews. The written ones. Once they started letting all the moronic TGWTG rejects do video reviews, the whole site went to shit.


  8. Pat says:

    @Anonymous 2:17 PM

    Anon (who I suspect is James), your problem is that you think of this as a matter of good vs. evil. You believe that a (probably) libertarian candidate wouldn't have made these decisions. The sad truth, however, is that it's easy to have big aspirations when you've never had the opportunity to put them to the test. It's easy to be uncompromising when you're running for president and you have no hope of winning. Face the facts, if a libertarian president was elected, none of their policies would be enacted because of a bi-partisan legislature that would never want to support his bills. All he would be able to do would be veto the things you've listed. Guess what? Vetoing the NDAA would basically mean the military budget would collapse costing thousands of lives and jobs. Vetoing the Patriot Act would probably be OK. The War on Drugs would be no different. Ceasing the War on Terror would probably result in a great deal of animosity from the nations that are still counting on our assistance and support.

    If you truly believe libertarians are better suited to lead the nation, you have to start small. Promote libertarian candidates in local government and eventually congress. Give them the power so they can prove they are better suited for it and gain more public support. Then, when libertarians have a substantial presence in congress, a libertarian president might make sense.

    But no, you just want to FEEL better by voting for a candidate that you believe SHOULD be president. If I thought like you, I would write in Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He would be an awesome president. So what if he doesn't have a prayer of winning and winning would probably amount to nothing anyway? At least I didn't vote for someone “evil”.

    Politics is not about ethics, Anon. It's a game of chess. And in American politics, the president is just the King. While important, his powers are limited. If you don't have the support from the other pieces, you just spend the entire game running around ineffectually.

    At the end of the day, I know that this election is about Obama and Romney. If Obama loses, then a few key issues I care about deeply may suffer. So while Obama may not be perfect, I stand to lose more not voting for him than I stand to gain voting for the “best” candidate.

    Wise up, Anon.


  9. Smpoza says:

    Okay, you're definitely James. Also, wow! You ignored the valid points Pat made against your shockingly stupid view of politics and just called him your go-to word for people who are smarter than you? Way to stun everyone!


  10. Anonymous says:

    @ James,
    I agree with Pat on that one pretty much all the way. At the moment I'm in a management class and the first lesson we learned was that there is in fact A VERY FINE LINE BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW. It's not illegal for people to be greedy, stupid, or assholes. Sure you can say your better than everyone else and there's nothing really wrong with that as long as you don't start preaching all your beliefs like some lunatic.


  11. Saarai'ari says:

    @ Anonymous 5:53 who is obviously James: James – stalking, and harassing people on their blogs, twitters, or whatever will never work to make them fess up to being hypocrites or turn libertarian, despite the fact you obviously have no understanding of what hypocrisy really means and your mental disorder can't seem to get that through your head. Won't work on Moviebob, and it won't work on the many people who you can't comprehend why they would vote Obama over Gary Johnson, who fact of the matter is won't win the Presidency where as Obama does. Polls show Johnson just doesn't have the votes, will get no more if not less than 0.3% of the total vote if he's lucky, and voting for him is just as equal to that of throwing your voting ballot in a trash can.

    Not to mention this is a complete low for you. You promised you'd leave MovieBob alone. What you've shown to all of us, and to yourself, is that you are a liar and a boy of no integrity. No integrity. Why should any of us listen to a liar and boy of no integrity with a bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome? And I said boy instead of man as a real man would keep his word, not to mention your comprehension of politics and ethics is childish. At this point, the definition of Internet Troll on a dictionary would have your face next to it, and you've just made yourself even worse than other trolls Bob has such as TemplarGamer or 2bitSpecialist. At least their ridiculous and hollow attempts at trolling Bob are sometimes amusing where as yours is pathetic.

    Heck, I remember one time you said on twitter you hate Bob cause he reminds you of your father. If you have Mommy and Daddy issues, take it up with them. Don't use others as expy's for those you have issues with. Seriously, see a therapist about your issues. You obviously have them and if you really have bad depression as you once said recently, harassing others like Bob is not the way to go through with it, and you should just do something more productive with your time like watch tv or play some video games.

    Again James. No one's going to listen to you or do as you say. You're a liar and someone who has no integrity what so ever. And if you can't bring yourself to do it, I think we should all just message Gary Johnson on twitter about your behavior and ask if he supports it, and also ask him to message you on why it's wrong to do so. Either that or message someone else you idolize like Penn Jillete. And unlike you, I'd recommend those who would make take the idea to only do it once or twice. Just ask a few times, and don't bother them again to not lower yourself to James level. Maybe he'd listen to someone he looks up to.


  12. Muthsarah says:

    So you have successfully identified him as a troll, and you're still responding to him, eh? Posting multi-paragraph retorts to posts he writes in maybe ten seconds? Don't you realize you're putting in way more work than he is and getting far less out of it?

    Make it a point here on out to ignore any trollish post from an Anonymous. “James” or not, it's never worth responding to someone who has nothing constructive to say and who clearly doesn't care enough to even bother attaching a name to their post. Have you seriously never dealt with an internet troll in all the time you've been on the Interwebs? Do you seriously not know how to deal with one by now? You must have better things to do with your time, even if clearly he doesn't.


  13. Anonymous says:

    Hi, this is a different Anon, but I'm also a Libertarian. Just wanted to chime in and say, Pat, your thinking is what is wrong with our political system. Politics shouldn't be a game. One of the reasons our country is the way it is now is because people just accept the two choices we are given. Voting against a candidate is even worse than voting for a candidate that won't win because your vote is confirmation of that persons policies. And I did vote for Obama in 2008.

    Basically by voting Libertarian, or ANY third party for that matter, I'm using my voice to say I'm dissappointed with what Obama has done, but Republicans have put up an unexceptable alternative. The idea that voting third party is a wasted vote is BS because despite how much the big two parties want the public to believe that, the Republican party is dying to get Ron Paul supporters on their side. The only wasted vote is not voting at all.


  14. TheAlmightyNarf says:

    @ Clint Eastwood

    Fascinating concept, kind'a liked what you had to say between all the stammering, but horrible execution. Should've practiced that a few more times before going on stage or, I don't know, actually told anyone else you were going to do it so they could have gotten the teleprompters ready for you. I mean, ballsy going all improv like that, and “entertaining” would not be an inaccurate word to describe it (though, not for the reasons you would like), but that would've been risky to pull off for someone a quarter your age.

    You know what… work on it a bit, perhaps get someone more familiar with directing that sort of skit, and I wouldn't mind seeing you take another shot at it.


  15. Anonymous says:

    @ the various Libertarian anons:

    Your style of government is currently in effect… in Somalia. Please live there instead of in the US. The US, as this video proves, has more than enough crazy in it without you adding your two appallingly unintelligent cents.


  16. TheAlmightyNarf says:

    @ Anon 6:49

    No, I don't think libertarianism shares much in common with strictly enforced shari'a law. Or are you referring Xeer (which, frankly, also has little in common with libertarianism)? I mean, the Somalian Parliament is fairly typical as far as bicameral legislators go. I'm not sure what makes the country particularly libertarian at all.

    Or, do you just know absolutely nothing about Somalia?


  17. Anonymous says:

    @ Anon 6:49 – Please stop spreading that “Somalia is libertarianism in action” bullshit. It just shows how ignorant you really are.


  18. Anonymous says:

    I can't take Libertarianism seriously on the basis that this is a group that worships Ayn Rand and her psychopathic ramblings. She advocated a society with zero compassion with absolutely no social services but a police and court system largely intended for the rich to oppress the thinly-veiled slave caste propping them up.


  19. Anonymous says:

    That's fine. I can't take seriously people who worship the two party system and advocate a lesser-than-two-evil style of politicing, which incidently is also largely intended for the rich to oppress the thinkly veiled slave caste which we are curretnly heading towards.


  20. TheAlmightyNarf says:

    @ Anon 12:01

    Well, that's a rather shallow interpretation. However, Rand advocated a very specific form of Libertarianism called Objectivism, but it's hardly the only form.

    I'm more inclined toward Consequentialist Libertarianism which is actually philosophically very different even if the outcome is similar.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s