But, as Scott has shown, the theme being peddled by the pro-Obama MSM — that Eastwood indulged in incoherent rambling — is false. As such, it should be regarded as a mixture of denial and blatant partisan spinning, mostly the latter.
Washington Post reporters Phillip Rucker (a pro-Obama shill of longstanding) and Amy Argetsinger give away the game in a front-page story that appears today. They describe Eastwood’s presentation as “raw, unpolished [and] a little bit angry,” and as “wacky,” “rambling,” and “old-timey.” They point several times to Eastwood’s age. And they claim, through the subtitle of their story, that Eastwood served up “Republican talking points.” Angry and wacky ones, I assume.
But what Rucker and Argetsinger don’t do much of is quote from Eastwood’s speech. Indeed, they don’t quote it all until almost 20 paragraphs in. At that point, they offer us only the actor’s innocuous introduction (“I know what you’re thinking; what’s a movie tradesman doing here. . . .”) That’s it, as far as Eastwood’s own words from Thursday night are concerned. To actually quote the political content of the speech would have hurt Obama (the target) while undermining the MSM’s spin
For in reality, Eastwood landed any number of zingers at Obama’s expense. And the fact that he delivered them as they are delivered in ordinary conversations in peoples’ living rooms, rather than as a politician would do, probably made them more effective, if anything.
For better or for worse, Eastwood’s presentation has become an internet sensation. Part of the “better” is that folks will see how off-base the MSM has strayed in its attempts to spin the speech into incoherence.