Invisible tinfoil hat: Clint Eastwood is a long-term plant for our side.

[Pale Blue Dot]

I know, I know, it sounds ridiculous. I mean, he's been a lifelong Republican, including spending time as a Republican mayor in California. Yet I've always believed that there's something fishy going on:

1. His most recent movies, which he produces and directs as well as scores (sometimes) have sometimes subtle, but often not-so-subtle, liberal overtones. Million Dollar Baby is the most obvious example, but it doesn't take a socialist to see liberal themes in Unforgiven, Invictus, Hereafter, J. Edgar, Mystic River and Changling. Probably the most right-wing movie he's made in the past 20 years is Flags of Our Fathers, and to balance that he made Letters From Iwo Jima, told from the Japanese point of view, in the same year.

2. As director and producer, he gets to choose the actors he works with. For some reason, he seems to always choose the most outspoken liberals in Hollywood: Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Angelina Jolie... Morgan Freeman is one of his best friends!

So I am left with only 1 of 2 conclusions based on last night's performance: either he has really taken leave of all of his senses; or, he has been playing the Republicans for fools all this time and set out to deliberately make them look bad.

You decide.

[babylonsister]

1. Ha! ...

[Fumesucker]

2. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1231610

[-..__...]

3. One... he's not a bat shit crazy repub.

Two... he doesn't mix his political beliefs with his business end.

If his films were perceived as leaning to far left (or right), all it does is alienate a segment of potential movies goers.

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. His biggest money-maker as a director in the past 15 years was

Million Dollar Baby, which royally pissed off the right wing.

[-..__...]

10. Let me guess...

his protege was in the boxing ring instead of in the kitchen and having babies?

[Pale Blue Dot]

11. You haven't seen it?

SPOILER ALERT: Eastwood's character commits euthanasia.

[-..__...]

13. Nope... I've seen it.

I forgot about that part.

[DirkGently]

4. Had the same wild thought. Beats thinking Clint has gone bonkers.

[XemaSab]

6. I don't think he's a plant for our side

but he's smart and he thinks for himself.

The last 12 years have been a hard time to be a smart Republican.

It's almost like a trope from one of his movies: there's nothing more dangerous than a man who just doesn't give a fuck.

[fascisthunter]

7. actually he was a perfect distraction for Romney... less attention on maggot mouth is good for him

[sabrina 1]

8. Well, he did manage to turn a crowd of blood-thirsty war-mongers into what looked like

a Liberal anti-war rally after he railed against the War in Afghanistan.

And then he got them to protest Obama's 'failure to close Gitmo'. So now are we to believe that Republicans, who never saw a war they didn't like or torture they didn't think was entertainment, are now anti-war and pro the closing of Gitmo?

He also succeeded in completely obliterating Romney's Convention speech all over the news today. I didn't see either his or Romney's speeches, but I have no clue what Romney said due to coverage of what Clint Eastwood said.

If he really is a left wing mole, it's probably his greatest role ever.

[Zorra]

9. He's the new "chair-man" of the RNC.

[librechik]

12. IMO--I think he has no idea what party to belong to ideologically--politically naive

and just chose Repub cuz he has Repub friends. Now he's stuck with them even though he doesn't believe in much (any?) of their platform. Cuz he's kinda not aware of things.

[ErikJ]

20. Yes, his Superbowl ad and this. He seems confused.

[sofa king]

14. Well, that's sure as hell how it turned out, anyway.

Whether he intended to or not I doubt we will ever know for sure. But he couldn't have done much better at upstaging the nominee and further tattering the veil of Republican credibility.

[XemaSab]

15. He's got a movie coming out

In the next few weeks we're going to see him making the rounds and looking oh-so-sane.

If I'm wrong then I will eat crow, but I'm pretty damn sure he knew what he was doing.

[sofa king]

19. I was thinking the same thing last night.

He produced that film and it looks uninteresting enough to send him scrounging for his next project's funds. Maybe he already got them, and still walked away with his conscience.

Or maybe his conscience has eroded entirely. Can't tell yet.

[Kalidurga]

16. It is entirely possible.

He did in a sort of a veiled way tell Mitt Romney to go f*ck himself. He pretended it was invisible Obama, but if it is really; what he wanted to do, he found a way to do it and not get blamed for it. There wasn't a whole lot in that mess that looked like a Romney endorsement. And there was that weird throat cutting motion that was over the top and it looked like it was designed to be over the top. I really don't know what to make of that mess. I hope the guy isn't senile.

[Mimosa]

18. ^ Agree with you ^

Eastwood is a libertarian with some New Deal social leanings and some Eisenhower type Republican fiscal leanings.

Nobody who knows him well would be posting here, but that's who he is and he is not senile although he is aging.

[RebelOne]

17. Al Gore last night said some of his best friends were Republicans.

So even if Eastwood did hire liberal actors, I do not think their political leanings made much difference.

[waltcoogan]

21. "Flags of Our Fathers"

There is absolutely nothing "right-wing" about Flags of Our Fathers. Indeed, the film constitutes a critique of the US Government's deceptive propaganda efforts at the end of World War II and shows the toll that those propaganda efforts, along with the brutality of war, takes on the soldiers. In effect, the film suggests that celebrating soldiers as heroes may seem great to the rest of us, but for the soldiers themselves, the celebratory dynamic misses the point and results in brutal disillusionment.